VIEWS 



IN 



THEOLOGY. 

LYMAN BEECHER, D. D. 

t I 

PRESIDENT OF LANE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 

PUBLISHED BY REQUEST 



THE SYNOD OF CINCINNATI. 




CINCINNATI : 
PUBLISHED BY TRUMAN AND SMITH. 



NEW YORK! 
LEAVITT, LORD AND CO. 

1836. 



3* V* 



Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1836, 

EY TRUMAN AND SMITH, 

In the Clerk's Office for the District Court of Ohio. 



CINCINNATI: 
PRINTED AT THE CINCINNATI JOURNAL OFFICE, 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



I. INTRODUCTION. 

II. NATURAL ABILITY. 

III. MORAL ABILITY. 

IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 

V. TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 
VI. REGENERATION. 



INTRODUCTION. 



TO THE SYNOD OF CINCINNATI. 

Beloved Brethren: 

I avail myself of the earliest opportunity permitted by 
prior engagements, to comply with your request, ' that I 
would publish at as early a day as possible, a concise state- 
ment of the argument and design of my Sermon on Native 
Depravity, and of my views of total depravity, original sin, 
and regeneration, agreeably to my declaration and explana- 
tion before Synod. 5 I am cheered in this attempt by the 
consideration that the Synod ( saw nothing in my views, as 
explained by myself, to justify any suspicion of unsound- 
ness in the faith,' and expressed their entire satisfaction 
with the terms of my acquiescence in their decision, and 
their belief that nothing insuperable remained to prevent 
my usefulness, or impair confidence in me, as a minister 
of the gospel in the Presbyterian church. I am cheered, 
because, though my doctrinal opinions have been unchanged 
from the beginning, and have been published often, and are 
in accordance, as I suppose, with the received expositions 
of the Confession of Faith, and the Bible, and have seemed to 
receive some token of Divine approbation, and as eternity 
approaches are increasingly precious to my own soul, it is 
nevertheless true that I had fallen under suspicions. The 
causes of these suspicions, I shall not stop to explain ; nor 
am I disposed to regard them with entire disapprobation. In 
one view, I regard them with pleasure, as evidence of a 



viii 



INTRODUCTION. 



wakeful zeal for the truth, for want of which in a genera- 
tion past, innovations and heresies were permitted insidiously 
to invade portions of the church. 

But who does not know that upon the very confines of 
honest zeal for the truth, lie the territories of twilight, and 
suspicion, and rumor, and fear, and whisperings, and false 
accusations, by which confidence is undermined, and very 
friends separated ? 

The strength of the church, under God, depends on con- 
centrated action ; and this, like mercantile credit, depends 
on confidence. Whatever, therefore, propagates distrust 
among brethren, creates a panic, like the failure of capitalists 
in a great city. Of this, the enemy of souls is aware ; and 
has never failed, when the power of the church became too 
formidable to be resisted, to ease him of his adversaries, by 
dividing them. Thus the sacramental controversy divided 
the reformers, and the contentions of the Independents and 
Presbyterians lost the vantage ground in the commonwealth, 
and brought back monarchy, dissoluteness, and irreligion. 

In this nation, for a long time, the kindred denominations, 
Congregational and Presbyterian, lived in peace and good fel- 
lowship, and were doing valiantly their part in filling the 
land with churches and temples, and pastors and revivals, 
and seemed to bid defiance to his wiles. But at length the 
storm has smitten us, and with a fury proportioned to our 
power of annoyance to the kingdom of darkness. I was not 
unapprised of the beginning of this evil, when I consented to 
come into the Presbyterian church ; but its subsequent devel- 
opments have indeed outrun all expectation, and have 
reached a crisis deeply afflicting, humiliating, and alarming. 
Extensively, confidence has ceased, and misapprehension, 
and suspicion, and alienation, and contention have entered. 
In this condition of the church, though pressed beyond mea- 
sure by other responsibilities, there is no effort, or sacrifice, 
or self-denial which I would not make joyfully, to extend 
correct information, allay suspicion, extinguish animosity, 



INTRODUCTION. ix 

stop contention, and by purity and peace, and concentrated 
action, make her prosperity like the waves of the sea. 

It will not be easy, however, to illustrate my views on the 
subjects named, in the form of independent dissertations, 
without the danger of alleged discrepancy. Nor do I under- 
stand it to be the wish of the Synod that I should confine 
myself to the exact limits and language of my defence. I 
have chosen, 'therefore, to follow the order, and extensively 
the language of my defence from copious notes, adding such 
illustrations and topics as I had prepared, but a regard to 
brevity compelled me to omit. Making such an exhibition, 
however as will, in the best manner, answer the design of the 
Synod, in putting the community in possession of my doc- 
trinal views on the subjects named. 

I cannot, however, forbear to remark, that the necessity of 
explanation imposed on me at this time of life by unfounded 
accusations, is not unlike calling on an aged merchant of 
long-established reputation, to prove his honesty, by the exhi- 
bition of his books; or a physician of age and experience, to 
repel the suspicion of quackery, by publishing an account of 
his cases and his practice. I am happy, however, to say, 
that it is not the fault of the Synod, that such a necessity 
exists, and that all which I requested or hoped, was illus- 
trated in the kind and candid manner in which the trial was 
conducted. 

2 



VIEWS IN THEOLOGY. 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
Moderator : 

It gives me pleasure to express the confidence 
which I feel in the christian integrity of this court. 
It is possible for man to be so biased by interest, or 
s wayed by passion, or bound by party, as to super- 
sede the .vision of evidence, or its efficacy, when it is 
seen. But no member of this court has, I trust? 
placed himself in this predicament. Is there one of 
you who would be sorry, should the evidence of my 
innocence be made to appear; who would not rejoice, 
should he find his suspicions- allayed, and his fears 
averted? Is there a man in this court who would 
not as soon cut his hand off, as to lift it against m e 
contrary to his honest convictions? Would any 
thing be more grateful to your heart, than to see the 
court united in the acquittal of Dr. Wilson and my- 
self, and all of us united in building up the cause of 
Christ in the West? 

You are aware, however, that integrity of purpose 
does not guaranty infallibility of judgment; and that 
rumors, and suspicions, and prejudgment from ex 
parte hearsay testimony, which have no place in the 
decisions of this tribunal, are extremely apt, through 
human imperfection, to thrust themselves in the 



L2 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 



Judgment not infallible. The Church bound to be kind. 

scales, and bias seriously the judgment. This per- 
verting influence of preconceived opinion, formed 
upon testimony disallowed by law, is so common and 
so powerful, that in criminal cases in civil courts, no 
man is permitted to sit in judgment who has formed 
an opinion touching the merits of the case. In eccle- 
siastical trials for heresy at the present time, there is 
a peculiar liability to the evil bias of a prejudgment, 
when accusations long and loud have filled the land, 
and roused suspicion, and created panic, and under- 
mined confidence, and multiplied aggression and 
exasperation, and brought on the symptoms in our 
church of an approaching dissolution. Zeal for the 
truth, and divided responsibility of numbers, and the 
fear of suspicion of heresy, if any falter, may em- 
bolden men to act upon impressions made by testi- 
mony out of court which is not entitled to the weight 
of a straw. It is this extrajudicial evidence, without 
the forms of the law, which is invading the life and 
reputation of our citizens, and shaking the founda- 
tions of our republic. 

This summary justice, should it enter the church, 
would annihilate all protection against prejudice and 
passion, and perpetrate injustice as much more detes- 
table than civil outrage, as the church is bound by a 
special obligation to be kind, and unimpassioned, and 
impartial; and whenever the time comes that inno- 
cence and evidence are no guarantee of a minister's 
reputation in the church, the day of her dissolution 
is at the door. 

I have no disposition to interrogate the members 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 



13 



Local phraseology, no evidence of heresy. 

of this Synod, whether they have formed an opinion 
touching the merits of this appeal. But you, breth- 
ren, have a right to ask your own heart how it is, 
and to w r atch and pray that you do not permit a kind 
of evidence to prevail, which all laws, human and 
divine, reject, as tending to anarchy and despotism. 

I have only to request, then, that you will not 
decide this appeal on the ground of any impressions 
from biases or prejudices produced out of court. It 
is here, by evidence to be produced in court, under 
the guardianship of our excellent system of discipline 
and laws of evidence, that you will enlighten your 
understandings and decide. 

You will be careful not to ascribe to me opinions 
which I never believed or taught, because I may have 
employed language in another part of the church, 
which, to ears unaccustomed to it, may seem errone- 
ous. If there be, at the same time, an obvious mean- 
ing in accordance with truth and my own declarations, 
charity and equity alike forbid that I should be denied 
the benefit and meaning I claim, and be made answer- 
able for that which I disclaim and abhor. 

You will by no means hold me guilty in propaga- 
ting opinions which you yourselves hold and teach, 
though from difference of location and education we 
may differ a little in the terms employed to explain 
and enforce them. 

Especially will you be careful that you do not 
convict me of heresy for opinions I have never 
avowed, and have always disclaimed, and of which 
there is no evidence but suspicion, in or out of court 

2* 



14 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 



Avowed and proved opinions should be the ground of decision. 

— merely upon the apprehension that all is not out — 
that something is covered and kept back, which, if I 
am spared, will by and by come out and punish the 
church. Most assuredly I have no concealed here- 
sies. I hold no opinions which I do not avow. All 
is out. I am determined to be understood, length 
and breadth, and from top to bottom. If my doc- 
trinal belief is adverse to the Confession of Faith, as 
immemorially explained, I am not only not reluctant 
to go out of the Presbyterian church, but I am deter- 
mined not to stay in it. 

Finally, you will be careful to decide on the ground 
of my opinions avowed and proved, and not on the 
ground of my suspected affinities with the assumed 
heresies of other men. I have refused always to be 
made accountable for the language or opinions of 
other men. For my own statements I am accounta- 
ble. They are the symbols of my faith — whatever 
accords with them I admit, and whatever differs from 
them, I disclaim as having anything to do with my 
creed or teaching. 

The comprehensive charge against me is, that I 
hold and teach Pelagian and Arminian doctrines, in 
respect to the subject of Free Agency, and Account- 
ability, Original Sin, Total Depravity, Regeneration 
and Christian Character, contrary to the Confession, 
and the word of God. 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



I commence with the subject of Free Agency, or the 
Natural Ability of man, as the foundation of obligation 
and moral government. 

I begin with this first, because it is, as Dr. Wilson 
has said, 'the hinge of the whole controversy.' This 
is eminently true. It is the different theories of 
free agency and accountability which have, in all 
ages, agitated the church. There is not a discus- 
sion about doctrine, at this time, in the Presbyte- 
rian church, which does not originate in discrepant 
opinions respecting the created constitutional pow- 
ers of man as a free agent, and the grounds of moral 
obligation and personal accountability. Settle the 
philosophy of free agency — what are the powers 
of a free agent? — how they are put together, and 
how they operate in personal accountable action — 
and controversy amuong all the friends of Christ will 
cease. It has been often said, that it never can be 
settled. I believe no such thing. The perplexities 
of the schoolmen are passing away, and the symp- 
toms of approximation to an enlightened and settled 
opinion among all evangelical denominations are 
beginning to appear. I have no discoveries to 



16 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Contrary opinion — fallen man has no ability to obey the gospel. 

publish on this subject — no favorite views of my 
own to propagate. It has been my great desire'to 
finish my course and keep the faith without any. The 
doctrines of free agency and natural ability, which I 
hold and advocate ? have been the revealed doctrines 
of the church from the beginning. They are not new 
divinity, nor new school — and though I am compelled 
to admit that there are some in the church who, when 
they are correctly explained, do not hold them ; the 
number in my belief is very small, who do not, when 
ail misapprehension is removed, believe the doctrines 
just as I believe them. They are also fundamental 
doctrines, which, if misinterpreted, will always envi- 
ron the Calvinistic system with invincible prejudice 
and odium without, and fill it with fierce conflicts 
within. But when correctly understood, will pour 
the stream of truth pure and full and clear as chrys- 
tal, through all the channels of the associated system. 

The doctrine claimed by the prosecutor as the true 
doctrine of the Confession and the Bible is, that to 
fallen man there remains no ability of any kind or 
degree to obey the gospel — that though he is a free 
agent, it is a free agency which includes no ability of 
any kind to obey God — and that none is necessary to 
constitute perfect obligation to obey, and perfect ac- 
countability for disobedience. That the obligation to 
obey may be infinite, and the punishment for disobe- 
dience just and eternal, where the obedience claimed 
is a natural impossibility as really as the creation of 
the world, or the raising of the dead. That I may 
not be supposed to mistake or misrepresent, I quote 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



17 



Dr. Wilson's views of free agency. 

my own and the language of Dr. Wilson, as it occur- 
red before Presbytery, and is correctly reported. 

Dr. B. — ; Dr. Wilson has made a distinct avowal, 
that free agency and moral obligation to obey law do 
not include any ability of any kind."* 

Dr. W. — ' I limited that avowal to man in his fallen 
state. 5 

Dr. B. — ' Yes, so I understood it. We are talking 
about man in his fallen state. Dr. Wilson then ad- 
mits, that it requires no ability of any sort in fallen 
man, to make him an accountable agent, and a sub- 
ject of God's moral government. 5 

Dr. W. — 'With respect to fallen man, I dof 
Now it must be admitted, that in this avowal, Dr. 
Wilson has the merit of magnanimous honesty. He 
is fairly out on a subject where, with many a man for 
an opponent, I should have had to ferret him out. 
There can at least be no doubt as to what Dr. Wilson 
does hold. If we are to go to Synod, this point will 
be clear; and when the report is published, no man 
can misunderstand this part of it. It is seldom that 
we meet a man who would be willing to march right 
up to such a position, without winking or mystifica- 
tion. But Dr. Wilson has done it unflinchingly and 
thoroughly. He interprets the Confession of Faith 
and the Bible as teaching that God may and does 
command men to perform natural impossibilities; and 
justly punish them for ever, for not obeying! though 
they could no more obey than they could create a 
world! And he has riveted the matter by his mental 
philosophy of the will. Instead of supposing a mind 



18 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Alleged heresy — possibility of obedience. 

with powers of agency, acting freely in view of mo- 
tives, he supposes the will to be entirely dependent 
on the constitution and condition of body and mind, 
and external circumstances; and controlled by these 
as absolutely as straws on the bosom of a river are 
controlled by the motions of the water.* 

It is claimed, then, by the prosecutor, that the 
Confession of Faith and the Bible teach, that fallen 
man has no ability of any kind to obey God, and that 
none is necessary to perfect obligation and the just 
desert of eternal punishment. 

Now my alleged heresy consists in believing and 
teaching, that the constitutional powers of a free 
agent, including the possibility of their correct exer- 
cise in obedience, is necessary to moral obligation, 
and reward and punishment, under the benevolent, 
wise, and just government of God. 

And I do hold and teach, that while to a just liabil- 
ity to all the consequences of the fall on our constitu- 
tion and character, no ability of any kind on our part 
to prevent or avert the curse existed, or was necessa- 
ry — the evil coming on us, his posterity, as the curse 
of his disobedience through our constituted relation 



* Dr. Wilson has said that the reporter has not done him justice. 
How? Is not the dialogue verbatim as it took place? How has in- 
justice been done? Does he hold, that fallen man does possess 
ability of some kind to obey as the foundation of moral obligation? 
Then let him withdraw the charge of heresy on this point, for this 
is all I hold; and if he does not admit this, let him state in what re- 
spect he has been misrepresented — for it is a point on which there 
is no middle ground. But Dr. Wilson will not say that his dialogue, 
as reported, is not correct. 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Faculties of a free agent. 

to him as our federal head — yet, to a personal ac- 
countability to law and desert of punishment, ability 
of some kind or degree is certainly indispensable. 
Some possibility of obedience in adult man is indis- 
pensable to personal obligation and a just punishment 
for transgression. Liability to be involved in the 
consequences, natural and moral, of the conduct of 
those who represent us, is a law of human society, 
and probably a law of the social, intelligent universe 
— and as it existed and operated in the case of Adam 
and his posterity, is doubtless a wise, benevolent, 
and just constitution. But while a liability to suffer 
the consequences of another's conduct, on the ground 
of a just constitution of things, demands no ability to 
avert the evil; accountability for personal transgres- 
sion does require some ability to refuse the evil and 
choose the good. There must be the faculties and 
powers of a free agent, bearing the relation of possi- 
bility to right action. Faculties that can do nothing, 
and powers that have no relation of a cause to its 
effect, in possible action, are nonentities. A free 
agency that cannot act at all in any way, is no free 
agency; and a free agency, that has no power of 
right action, is in that respect no free agency. There 
must be an agent qualified to act as he is required 
to act — something in his constitution which qualifies 
him to be governed by law, and rewards and punish- 
ments — as matter and animals are not qualified. There 
must be something which qualifies for obedience and 
creates obligation which renders obedience possible, 
and makes it reasonable that it should be rendered 



20 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will. Actual obedience not essential to free agency. 

and rewarded, and just that disobedience should be 
punished. 

Now I have taught and I do hold, that the mind of 
man, though in a fallen state, is still endued by its 
Creator 'with that natural liberty that it is neither 
forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature de- 
termined to good or evil, nor is violence offered to 
the will of the creature' — nor is the liberty or con- 
tingency of second causes (i. e. the power of the soul 
to choose life or death in the view of motives,) taken 
aw T ay, but rather established. This is what I mean, 
and all I mean, by the natural ability of man to obey 
the gospel. Material causes, while upheld by heaven, 
are adequate to their proper effects; and the mind of 
man, though fallen, is, while upheld, a cause sufficient 
in respect to the possibility of obedience to create 
infinite obligation. The fall perverted, but did not 
destroy the free agency of man. Perverted the use 
of his powders in action, but did not destroy the ex- 
istence of those powers which distinguish man as a 
subject of moral government from animals, and lie at 
the foundation of all obligation. This is my alleged 
heresy; and to decide that it is a heresy, is to decide 
that the Confession of Faith and the Bible teach, that 
to fallen man, no ability of any sort is necessary to 
constitute infinite obligation, and a just desert of eter- 
nal punishment. 

But while I thus insist on the existence of the 
commensurate powers of an agent, as essential to 
free agency and accountability, I do not believe, and 
have never taught, that actual obedience is essential 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



21 



Bias to actual sin not a coercive cause. 

to free agency, or that the free agency which suffices 
to create a perfect obligation to obey, ever suffices 
without the special influence of the Holy Spirit to 
secure in fallen man even the lowest degree of holy, 
actual obedience. On the contrary, I hold and teach, 
that such a change in the constitution of man was 
produced by the fall, as creates a universal and prev- 
alent propensity to actual sin — to the setting of the 
affections on things below, and loving the creature 
more than God — preventing in all men the existence 
of holiness, and securing the existence of that actual, 
total depravity,'which is enmity against God, not sub- 
ject to his law, neither indeed can be — a bias which 
prevents the power of all truth and motives to reconcile 
men to God till its power is overcome by the special in- 
fluence of the Holy Spirit in regeneration; and though 
impaired by that event, still remains in the regenerate 
until removed entirely by the Spirit, in making the 
soul of the saint meet for heaven. I only say with 
our Confession, that this bias to actual sin acts not in 
the form of a coercive cause, creating a fatal and irre- 
sistible necessity of sinning, and of course constitutes 
no excuse for actual sin, and no mitigation of the 
curse due to it, or abatement of God's boundless 
mercy in providing redemption for incorrigible man. 
This impediment to obedience, arising from a preva- 
lent bias of nature and actual aversion to spiritual 
obedience, is called in the Confession and the Bible, 
inability to obey on account, as I suppose, of the 
same absolute certainty between their existence and 
the result, that appertains to natural causes and their 

3 



22 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Moral inability. Certainty of wrong action. 

effects; and it is called a moral inability to indicate 
that though wrong, as securing wrong action with un- 
failing certainty, it does so not by a fatal necessity of 
sinning, but by an unnecessary, unreasonable, inex- 
cusable aversion of the soul to God and his reasonable 
service. 

While I teach, therefore, the ability of man as a 
free agent, and as the ground of obligation, I teach 
his moral inability as a sinner — the subject of the 
carnal mind which is enmity against God — not sub- 
ject to his law, neither indeed can be. 

In the true sense of the terms as employed in the 
Confession, and in the Bible, and in the common and 
well understood language of men, I teach that, ; no 
mere man since the fall has been able perfectly to 
keep the commandments of God — and that the natu- 
ral man cannot understand and know the things of 
the Spirit of God, because they are spiritually dis- 
cerned—and that no man can come to Christ, except 
tliQ Father draw him.' 

I proceed now to show, that the preceding account 
of man's free agency, and natural ability, 'and of 
his total depravity and moral impotency, are the 
doctrine of our Confession, and of the Bible. 

The point at issue is not, whether fallen man ever 
did, or ever will, act right, in a spiritual sense, 
without the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. It is 
admitted, and insisted, and to be proved, that he 
never did, and never will. The point at issue is — in 
what manner the certainty of the continuous wrong 
action of the mind comes to pass? Does it come to 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



23 



The mind not forced to a wrong choice. 

pass coerced or uncoerced by necessity? Does fallen 
man choose, under the influence of such a constitu- 
tion of body, and mind, and motive, that every voli- 
tion bears the relation of an effect to a natural and 
necessary cause, rendering any other choice than the 
one which coipes to pass impossible in existing cir- 
cumstances? Or is fallen man still an agent, so 
constituted that in every act of choice he is uncon- 
strained and uncoerced by any necessity, like that 
which binds natural effects to their causes? Is the 
soul so exempt from the laws of a natural necessity, 
that it is never forced to choose wrong; there exist- 
ing in every case the possibility and obligation 
growing out of the possibility of a different, or con- 
trary choice? The latter is the view of free agency 
and accountability which I shall endeavor to estab- 
lish, as the doctrine of the Confession and the Bible; 
and, 

I. There is no reason to doubt that God is able 
to create free agents, who being sustained and placed 
under the illumination and influence of his laws and 
perfect government, shall be able to obey or disobey 
in the regular exercise of the powers of their own 
mind. 

The alleged impossibility of created self-existing 
agents acting independently of God, does not touch 
the point: for the supposition of agency able to 
choose the good and refuse the evil, does not imply 
the mind's' self-existence, but the efficacy of its pow- 
ers, while upheld; and it might as well be said that 
God cannot create natural causes, which, while he 



24 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Creation and government of mind upon principles of free agency. 

upholds them, can, by their own power, produce an 
effect, as that he cannot create mind, which, while 
upheld by him, is capable of acting right or wrong* 
under the requirements and motives of his govern- 
ment; both lead to pantheism, denying all created 
causes, and making God the only cause and the only 
agent in the universe. 

There is no perceptible difficulty in creating mind* 
more than in creating matter — in creating active, 
than passive existence — or thinking, than unthinking 
— voluntary, than involuntary being. It is just as 
conceivable that God should create mind endowed 
with an energy which, while it is sustained, is com- 
mensurate to every requisite action under his govern- 
ment, by its own power, as that he should create 
passive matter, dependent for every movement and 
change on external causation. 

How God can originate existence of any kind, is 
incomprehensible, but no one can prove it to be im- 
possible. The creation of an intelligent universe, of 
free, accountable minds, capable of all the responsi- 
bilities of a perfect, eternal government, is just as 
conceivable therefore, as the creation of hills and 
valleys, plants and animals. 

II. If it be possible to create and govern mind upon 
the principles of free agency, and a perfect and per- 
manent moral government, the presumption is strong 
that this is in fact the divine plan. What other con- 
ceivable course could the wisdom of God devise, so 
comprehensive of good, as the creation of a universe 
of mind, with its constitutional susceptibilities, and 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



2.3 



Animal life. Capabilities of mind. 

active, and social, and voluntary powers; qualified 
for all the results of a government of perfect laws, 
perfectly administered? 

It is self-evident that the creation of unorganized 
matter could not illustrate the copiousness and 
power of the Divine benevolence. God might 
amuse himself with curious workmanship, but how 
could he impart happiness to unorganized mat- 
ter? It is equally clear that mere animal life 
falls, in its capacity of enjoyment, unspeakably 
below the capabilities of mind. How limited is the 
range of the monotonous appetites! How narrow 
the circle of mere fleeting, instinctive action; and 
how feeble the momentary tie of natural affection, 
compared with its corroboration by ties of blood, 
and habits of intercourse, and the illumination of 
reason, and the powers of memory, and the light of 
an anticipated eternity, of unextinguished, purified, 
augmented and reciprocated friendship! 

How immeasurable is that expansion of capacity 
in man, above the animal, which opens the eye of his 
intellect upon the character, will, and government 
of God; which brings him into fellowship with his 
Maker, and opens before him the joys of a blessed 
immortality; associated with a reasonable service, 
and benevolent activity, under the high and perfect 
guidance of heaven. 

A single mind, through a duration which will never 
end, may be capable of more enjoyment than it 
w T ere, in the nature of things, possible to pour 
through the narrow channels of animal instinct 

3* 



26 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



God's benevolence displayed in the creation of mind. 

and appetite. The river of pleasure is of course rep- 
resented as flowing from the throne of God and the 
Lamb, i. e. as being the result of his intelligent crea- 
tion and moral government; what an ocean of bless- 
edness, compared to the drops of the bucket, which 
any other conceivable mode of being could have 
received! A universe, that can live in the past, 
present, and future, and experience a copiousness 
and variety of blessedness unknown to the moping 
animal — to have stopped at the limits of animalism, 
and forborjne to create mind, would have been to 
prefer the ray to the sun — the atom to the universe. 
It would seem to be manifest and certain, then, that 
for the most perfect manifestation of his wisdom 
and benevolence, the Supreme Intelligence w r ould 
call into being around him, other beings like himself, 
to hold communion with him and with one another, 
and after his own illustrious example to be made 
happy by their own benevolent activity in doing 
good; would create mind — and wake up intelligence 
round about his throne, for the mirrors of creation 
to throw back the light of his glory upon — hearts to 
burn with love, and wills to obey, and energy to 
act, with high deservings of good or evil — a universe 
so powerful in intellect as to be able to look with 
open face and steadfast vision upon the strong light of 
his glory, and so capacious of heart as to be able to 
receive the tide of joy which his benevolence shall 
pour through the soul — so energetic as to sustain the 
strong emotion which his excellence produces, and 
to perform for ever untiringly the glorious work of 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



2? 



Attributes of mind. Mental energy. 

benevolence — and so free that all its actions under 
the guidance of law shall be its own, and invested 
with all the attributes of a perfect accountability, 
which, in all its consequences of good or evil shall reach 
through eternity — social, also, we should expect it to 
be, holding affectionate communion with God and 
other minds; capable of moral excellence and all the 
fulness of perfect friendship and society. Obliterate 
conscious intelligence, and' voluntariness, and ac- 
countability from the human mind — disrobe it of its 
spontaneous affections, and mutual complacencies, 
and you put down the race to the mere caricature of 
manhood. 

There must exist the power of intellect, perception, 
comparison, judgment, conscience, will, affections, 
taste, memory, the discursive power of thought, the 
semi-omnipotence of volition, and those exercises of 
soul which constitute personal excellence and inspire 
affection. 

It is only in the possession of these powers that 
individual happiness is enjoyed. Convince a man 
that he is only the instinctive animal of a day, and 
you brutalize him. We love and are beloved, admire 
and are admired; we are praised or blamed on the 
ground of a real mental energy of our own, capable 
of such high and eternal responsibilities. Blot out the 
intelligence and spontaneous affection of husband and 
wife, of parent and child, and the family is ruined; the 
moral attractions cease; its sun goes down, and it 
becomes a den of animals. 

In the nature of things, the existence of a universe 



28 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Free agents have power to choose life or death. 

of mind, of free agents, of rational, social, accounta- 
ble beings, would seem to be indispensable to the 
highest illustration and expression of the goodness 
of God. 

III. God has actually made free agents who were 
able in the exercise of their created powers to choose 
either way — life or death. 

This is the doctrine of our Confession and Cate- 
chisms. * Man in his state of innocency had freedom 
and power to will and to do that which is good and 
well pleasing to God; but yet mutably so that he 
might fall from it.' — Confess. Ch. ix. Sec. 2. 

' Our first parents being left to the freedom of their 
own will, fell from the state wherein they were crea- 
ted, by sinning against God.'— Shorter Catechism, 
p. 322. 

It is the testimony of the Bible: ; Lo, this only have 
I found that God made man upright — but he sought 
out many inventions.' — Ecc. vii. 29. 

It is a part of the recorded history of the intelli- 
gent universe, and of God's moral government, that 
the angels kept not their first estate — and that man 
being in honor abode not. 

Now had Adam, created holy, been free to choose 
obedience only, and that by a natural, constitutional, 
unavoidable necessity, so that by the power of natur- 
al causation, his choice must be in accordance with 
his character and constitution of mind, and the con- 
stitution of things around him, or the active princi- 
ple which prevailed in his nature when volition took 
place; how could he be said to have power to will 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



29 



The Fall did not destroy the constitutional powers of free agency. 

that which is good, yet mutably so that he might fall 
from it, and how could he possibly fall? But he had 
power to stand and power to fall; and that is the 
essence of free agency, and was the ground of his 
accountability. 

IV. Nothing is apparent in the nature of the fall 
from w 7 hich to infer necessarily the destruction of 
the constitutional powers of free agency in Adam, 
or his posterity. It was an overt act — an actual sin. 
' In evil hour he put forth the hand and plucked and 
ate the fruit forbidden. 5 But does actual sin destroy 
the possibility of right action? It creates aversion — 
it secures the certainty under law of continuance in 
evil if unreclaimed by a mediator and almighty power. 
But does it do this by a constitutional necessity, like 
the power of a natural cause to its effect? If so, the 
adulterer,, and the drunkard, and the liar, would like 
to alleviate their remorse and quiet their fearful look- 
ing for of fiery indignation, by the consoling inform- 
ation that the more they live after the flesh, the 
deeper the oblivion of accountability, and crime, and 
punishment. 

But the Bible nowhere teaches, and the Confession 
expressly denies, that Adam or his posterity lost 
their powers of agency by the fall, and became impo- 
tent to good on the ground 'of a natural impossibility 
of obedience. 

Did the change of character, then, which the fall 
occasioned, preclude the possibility of subsequent 
obedience in Adam? What was the change? It was 
the utter loss of all holiness, and the prevalence of 



30 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Powers of agency requisite to obligation. Possibility of obedience. 

entire depravity — every imagination of the thoughts 
of his heart became evil, and only evil continually. 
But does total depravity render spiritual obedience a 
natural impossibility? How? Did the perfect holi- 
ness of Adam render sinning impossible? How then 
did he sin? Did God help him? Did the Devil force 
him? But if perfect holiness does not destroy the 
possibility of sinning, how should perfect sinfulness 
destroy the possibility of obedience? Is there not as 
much in the ; state of man' as holy, 'including all his 
rational, animal, and moral powers, with the active 
principle which prevails in him,' to make disobedience 
impossible to a holy mind, as in the same state of things 
in an unholy mind, to render obedience impossible? 
But if perfect holiness does not destroy the natural 
possibility of sinning, how does perfect sinfulness de- 
stroy the natural possibility of obedience? And if the 
fall did not destroy the natural powers of agency in 
Adam, which rendered obedience possible, obligatory, 
and a reasonable service, how should it destroy in his 
posterity those powers and responsibilities, which it 
did not obliterate in himself ? Has the fall overacted 
and come down with greater desolation on the rep- 
resented, than on the federal head and representa- 
tive of his race? 

V. That man possesses, since the fall, the powers 
of agency requisite to obligation, on the ground of the 
possibility of obedience, is a matter of notoriety. 
Not one of the powers of mind which constituted 
ability before the fall, have been obliterated by that 
event. All that has ever been conceived, or that can 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



31 



Obedience a reasonable service. Nature of choice. 

now be conceived, as entering into the constitution 
of a free agent capable of choosing life or death, or 
which did exist in Adam when he could and did obey, 
yet mutable, survive the fall. The intellect, the 
conscience, the susceptibilities of the soul to pleasure 
and pain, and the heart, including the will and affec- 
tions of the soul — all these as certainly exist and as 
plainly exist as the five senses. 

That nothing has been subtracted by the fall from 
the powers of agency requisite to the possibility of 
obedience, is strongly evident from the fact, that no 
one, by the most careful analysis of the mind, has 
ever been able to detect and name the fatal deficiency. 
The motive to make such an exculpatory discovery, 
and throw off hated obligation and feared punish- 
ment, has been as powerful as the terrors of eternity ; 
and the 'effort as constant as the flow of ages — and 
urged with ail that talent, and ingenuity, and 
learning could apply, and the wisdom from beneath 
inspire to establish the excusable impotency of man; 
and to this day the effort has been abortive. To 
appearance, the powers of the mind, and the law of 
God, and the glorious gospel, and the providence of 
God are, as they should be, to render obedience a 
reasonable service, and impenitence and unbelief 
without excuse; and where, amid the constitutional 
powers of agency, the defect lies, has never been dis- 
covered — what- it is, has never been told — or that 
there is any such defect, proved. 

VI. Choice, in its very nature, implies the possibility 
®{ a different or Contrary election to that which is 



32 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Fatality of choice. Doctrine of the christian fathers. 

made. There is always an alternative to that which 
the mind decides on, with the conscious power of 
choosing either. In the simplest form of alternative, 
it is to choose or not to choose ill a given way; but 
in most cases, the alternatives lie between two or 
many objects of choice presented to the mind; and 
if you deny to mind this alternative power — if you 
insist that by a constitution anterior to choice, of the 
nature of a natural cause to its effect, the choice 
which takes place can come, and cannot but come into 
being, and that none other than this can by any pos- 
sibility exist, you have as perfect a fatality of choice, 
as ever Pagan or Atheist, or Antinomian conceived. 
The question of free will is not whether man chooses 
— this is notorious, none deny it; but, whether his 
choice is free as opposed to a fatal necessity — as op- 
posed to the laws of instinct and natural causation; 
whether it is the act of a mind so qualified for choice, 
as to decide between alternatives, uncoerced by the 
energy of a natural cause to its effect; whether it is 
the act of an agent who might have abstained from 
the choice he made, and made one w 7 hich he did not. 
To speak of choice as being free, which is produced 
by the laws of a natural necessity, and which cannot 
but be when and what it is, more than the effects of 
natural causes can govern the time, and manner, and 
qualities of their being, is a perversion of language. 
The doctrine of the christian fathers, and of Luther and 
Calvin, and all theprotestant confessions and standard 
writers, is not merely that men act by volition or choice, 
the choice being the effect of natural causes, as 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



33 



Fatality of agency, illustrated. 

really and entirely as the falling of rain, or the elec- 
tric spark, or the involuntary shock that attends it. 
They meant and taught that the will is high above 
the coercion of natural causation, the fatality of the 
Stoics, Gnostics, Manicheans, or Epicureans; that it 
is the action of the mind of an intelligent agent, free 
as opposed to coercion or constraint; so that if the 
mental decision is right, it is properly associated 
with a reward, and if wrong, with punishment — an 
act which might, in possibility, have been refrained 
from, or resolved on when declined. This is what 
our Confession teaches and means, when it says that 
4 God hath endued the will of man with that natural 
liberty that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute 
necessity of nature determined, to good or evil; and 
that God's decrees, which extend to every event, 
'offer no violence to the will of the creature, and 
take not away, but rather establish the liberty and 
contingency of second causes' — meaning by contin- 
gency, as Dr. Twiss says every university scholar 
knows, ' things which come to pass avoidably, and 
with a possibility of not coming to pass. 5 This is the 
language of our own Confession in respect to the 
voluntary actions of men as contingent, i. e., as 
avoidable and with a possibility of not coming to pass. 
To illustrate the fatality of an agency, in which 
choice is the unavoidable effect of a natural con- 
stitutional and coercive causation, let us suppose an 
extended manufactory, all whose wheels, like those 
in Ezekiel's vision, were inspired with intelligence, 
and instinct with life, — some crying holy! holy! as 

4 



34 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Edwards' view of free agency. 

they rolled, and others aloud blaspheming God; all 
voluntary in their praises and blasphemies; but the 
volitions, like the motions of the wheels themselves, 
produced by the great water-wheel and the various 
bands which kept the motion, and the adoration, and 
the blasphemy agoing: how much accountability 
would attach to these voluntary praises and blas- 
phemies produced by the laws of water power; and 
what w T ould it avail to say, as a. reason for justifying 
God in punishing these' blasphemies — oh! but they 
are free, they are voluntary, they choose to blas- 
pheme? Truly, indeed, they blaspheme voluntarily; 
but their choice to do so is necessary in the same 
sense that the motion of the great wheel which the 
water, by the power of gravity turns, is necessary, 
and just as destitute of accountability. 

In this account of free agency, the ablest writers 
concur. Edwards says, ; In every act of will what- 
ever, the mind chooses one thing rather than an- 
other, the will's determining between the two is 
voluntary determining; and to act voluntarily, is 
to act electively where things are chosen.' ' There 
are faculties of mind,' he says, ' and capacity of 
nature, and every thing else sufficient but a disposi- 
tion. Nothing is wanting but a will.' ; A moral 
agent is a being that is capable of those actions that 
have a moral quality, and which can properly be 
denominated good or evil.' Edwards the younger 
says, ' If by power, be meant natural power, I grant 
that we have such a power to choose, not only one 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



35 



Buck's view of free agency. Fatalism. 

of several things equally eligible, if any such there 
be, but ohe of things ever so unequally eligible, and 
to take the least eligible.' ' Liberty or freedom 
must mean freedom from something, if it be a free- 
dom from coaction or natural necessity, that is what 
we mean by freedom.' Buck, on the article Neces- 
sity, says, 6 Necessity is, whatever is done by a cause 
or power that is irresistible, in which sense it is 
opposed to freedom. Man is a necessary agent, if 
all his actions be so determined by the causes pre- 
ceding each action, that not one past action could 
possibly not have come to pass, or have been other- 
wise than it hath been, nor one future action can 
possibly not come to pass, or be otherwise than it 
shall be. On the other hand, ij: is asserted, that he is 
a free agent, if he be able at any time, under the 
causes and circumstances he then is, to do different 
things; or, in other words, if he be not unavoidably 
determined in every point of time by the circum- 
stances he is in, and the causes he is under, to do any 
one thing he does, and not possibly to do any other 
thing.' And Dr. Woods says, 4 The power of choos- 
ing right or wrong makes him [man] a moral agent; 
his actually choosing wrong, makes him a sinner.' 

VII. Choice, without the possibility of other or 
contrary choice, is the immemorial doctrine of 
fatalism. 

I say not that all who assert the natural inability 
of man are fatalists. I charge them not with holding 
or admitting the consequences of their theory — and I 
mean nothing unkind or invidious, in the proposition 



36 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Laws of choice. Certainty of choice. Uniformity of choice. 

I have laid down, and truth and argument are not 
invidious. But I say, that the theory of choice, 
that it is what it is by a natural, constitutional 
necessity, and that a man cannot help choosing 
what he does choose, and can by no possibility 
choose otherwise, is the doctrine of fatalism in all 
its forms. That there are laws of choice, so uniform 
that in the same circumstances, the action of mind 
can be anticipated with great certainty, is not denied. 
That choice is in accordance with the state of body 
and mind, and character, and external circumstances, 
may be admitted, or that it is as the greatest appar- 
ent good is, may be admitted; but that it is so neces- 
sarily, to the exclusion of all ability of any kind to be 
other than it is, cannot be admitted, without aban- 
doning the field of God's government of accountable 
agents, and going to the very centre of the region of 
fatalism. The certainty of choice in given circum- 
stances does not decide the manner of the certainty, 
as one of natural necessity, without power to the 
contrary. That a man always, in the same cir- 
cumstances, chooses alike, is no evidence that he had 
no ability of any kind to choose otherwise, and 
chooses by a fatal necessity. Uniformity of choice, 
in the same circumstances, is just as consistent with 
free agency and natural ability, as with necessity 
and fatalism. But that choice, without the power of 
contrary choice, is fatalism in all its diversified forms, 
is obvious to inspection, and a matter of historical 
record. The fatality of the Stoics was an eternal 
series of cause and effect, controlling by inexorable 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



37 



Fatalism — Gnostic, Manichean, Pantheistic, Atheistic. 

necessity all events, from which the will of gods and 
men were not exempt. The fatality of Epicurus is 
a material fatality; he denied the existence of spirit, 
and held to the universal empire of natural causes 
over mind in all its voluntary actions. 

The Gnostic fatality made sin an eternal prop- 
erty of matter, and the contamination of mind the 
result of bodily innoculation and contact, and by an 
unavoidable necessity, precluding freedom of will as 
utterly as the communication of disease by virus. 

The Manicheans held with the Gnostics to the cor- 
ruption of matter, and also to sin in the essence or 
substance of the soul; both making sin a matter of 
necessity, independent of choice, and controling vo- 
lition as natural causes, produce their effects. 

The fatalism of Spinoza was material and panthe- 
istic, making God the soul of the world and the only 
agent, and himself subject to a self-existent, eternal 
necessity of action, and the author alike of sin and 
holiness. 

The fatalism of Descartes was the atomic theory, 
the fortuitous concourse of atoms — intelligence in 
results without an intelligent being — design without 
a designer — and choice, the product of the happy 
concurrence of material accidents. 

The fatalism of the French revolutionary atheists, 
was Sadducean; that all existence is material, and all 
its combinations and changes the result of material 
laws in the form of natural cause and effect; that 
mind is matter, and that volition is the result of 
material action; and that death, the decomposition of 

4* 



23 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Fatalism. — R. D. Owen, Bolingbroke, Hobbs, Hume, Priestly. 

the body, is an eternal sleep. This is the fatalism of 
Robert Dale Owen and Fanny Wright. 

The fatalism of Bolingbroke, and Hobbs, and 
Hume, was made to approximate a little more to 
the confines of rationality and truth, but not near 
enough to leave necessity behind and bring them un- 
der the government of God as free, accountable crea- 
tures. If they admitted the existence of mind and 
spirit distinct from matter, (of which there is some 
doubt,) they clothed motives, as the antecedents of 
volition, with the coercive power of material causes 
to their effects, and thus destroyed the liberty of the 
will, and introduced a universal coercive necessity 
of choice, just in all cases as it is without the possi- 
bility of one more or less, or different from those 
which actually come to pass. 

The necessity of Priestly and Belsham was mate- 
rial, and all volition in accordance with the laws and 
action of material causes. That motives produce 
volition necessarily on the same principle that natu- 
ral causes produce their effects; so that choice, as the 
spontaneous action of mind, enlightened, and guided, 
and influenced by law and motive, has no existence, 
but is in all cases the passive effect of antecedent 
natural causation, as incapable with accountability and 
desert of punishment as the sparks that rise by their 
less specific gravity than that of the surrounding 
atmosphere, or the rain drops that fall by their supe- 
rior gravity to the sustaining element. 

VIII. The supposition of accountability for choice, 
coerced by a natural necessity, is contrary to the 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



39 



Accountability for choice. Continued obligation and responsibility. 

nature of things as God has constituted them. The 
relation of cause and effect pervades the universe. 
* The natural world is full of it. It is the basis of 
all science, and of all intellectual operations with 
respect to mind. Can the intellect be annihilated 
and thinking go on? No more can the power of 
choice be annihilated and free agency remain. Is 
there not a capacity of choice with power of con- 
trary choice in angels? and was there not in Adam 
before he fell? But all the powers of the mind, per- 
ception, association, abstraction, memory, taste and 
feeling, conscience, and capacity of choice, which 
were required and did exist when man was created 
free, are still required to constitute free agency; and 
can it be that when all which capacitated Adam freely 
to choose is demolished, that the Lord still requires 
of his posterity that they, without the powers of their 
ancestor, should exercise the perfect obedience that 
was demanded of him. Do the requisitions of law 
continue when all the necessary antecedents to obe- 
dience are destroyed? Has God required effects 
without a cause? If he has, then he has in the case 
of man, violated the analogies of the whole universe. 
For in the natural world there is no effect without a 
cause, nor is there in the intellectual world. How 
then can it be, that the same analogy does not hold 
in the moral world, where there exists such tremen- 
dous responsibilities? What! will God send men to 
hell, for not doing impossibilities — for not producing 
an effect without a cause?' 

IX. ' The supposition of continued obligation and 



40 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Effect without a cause. Foundation of accountability # 

responsibility after all the powers of causation are 
gone, is contrary to the common sense and intuitive 
perception of all mankind. On the subject of moral 
obligation, all men can see and do see that there can 
be no effect without a cause. Men are so constituted, 
that they cannot help seeing and feeling this. That 
nothing cannot produce something is an intuitive per- 
ception, and you cannot prevent it. This is the basis 
of that illustrious demonstration by which we prove, 
the being of a God. For if one thing may exist with- 
out a cause, all things may; and we are yet to get 
hold of the first stran of an argument to prove the 
existence of a God. All men see that to require 
what there is not preparation for, is to demand an 
effect without a cause. What is the foundation of 
accountability? It is the possession of something to 
be accounted for. But if any man does not possess 
the capacity of choice with power to the contrary, 
he sees and feels that he is not to blame, and you 
cannot with more infallible certainty make men be- 
lieve, and fix them in the belief, that they are not 
responsible, than to teach them . that they have not 
the power of alternative election. It is the way 
to make a man a fatalist. But you cannot do it. 
God has put that in the breast of man which cannot 
be reasoned away. Every man knows and feels that 
he has power and is responsible. Men never associate 
blame with the qualities of will or action, on the 
supposition of a natural impossibility that they should 
be otherwise, but always on the supposition that they 
were able to have chosen or acted otherwise. What 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



41 



Power of -choice, a ground of accountability. Monomania. 

would be the education of a family on this principle? 
There is not a child five years old, but understands 
this. He breaks a plate, or spoils a piece of furni- 
ture, and when he apprehends punishment, he pleads 
with confidence, that he did not mean to do it. His 
language is, 6 1 could'nt help it, 5 and on that plea he 
rests. The child understands it ; and the parent under- 
stands it, and all human laws are built upon it. Why 
is not an idiot punished when he commits a crime? 
For the lack of that natural ability which alone makes 
him responsible. Why are not lunatics treated as 
subjects of law? Because their reason has been so 
injured as to destroy free agency, and with it to put 
an end to their accountability. Look at the govern- 
ment of a family. If one child is an idiot, the parent 
does not trust that child as he does the rest. He feels 
and admits, that the poor idiot is not responsible for 
its acts; and the same principle holds in the case of 
monomania, where the mind is deranged in one par- 
ticular respect. I was myself acquainted with a case 
of this sort. I knew an individual in whom all the 
powers were perfect — save that the power of associ- 
ation was wanting; that faculty by which one thought 
draws on another; and she was a perfect curiosity. 
She would commence talking on one subject, and be- 
fore the sentence was complete, she would commence 
on another, which had not the remotest connection 
with it, and in an instant pass to a third, which was 
foreign from both; and thus she would hop, skip, and 
jump over all the world — there was no concatenation 
of thought. Now, suppose this woman had been re- 



42 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of choice, a matter of universal consciousness. 

quired to deliver a Fourth of July Oration, admitting 
that she possessed all the knowledge and talent in 
other respects, necessary to such a task; on her 
failing to do it, is she to be taken to the whipping post, 
and lacerated for that which she wanted the natural 
ability to do? The magistrate who would award 
such a sentence, would at once become infamous — 
and shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? 
Will the glorious and righteous Jehovah reap where 
he has not sown, and gather where he has not strew- 
ed? Will he require obedience, where all power to 
obey is gone? Men do not require that, when even 
one faculty is gone 5 and will God, when all are gone, 
come and take his creature by the throat and say to 
him, pay that thou owest? That was the libel which 
the slothful servant brought against his Lord: ; I knew 
thee that thou wast a hard master, reaping where 
thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not 
strown, and I was afraid.' Who would not be afraid 
under suc^h a ruler? Who could tell what would come 
next? God requires according to that w r hich a man 
hath, and not according to that which he hath not. 
Were it otherwise, who could tell what wantonness 
and what oppression might not proceed from heaven's 
high throne ? 

It is a matter of universal consciousness, that men 
are free to choose right or w T rong, life or death. 

Of nothing are men more thoroughly informed, or 
more competent to judge unerringly, than in respect 
to their mode of voluntary action, as coerced or 
free. 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



43 



No alternative, but universal scepticism. 

Testimony may mislead, and the sense by disease 
may deceive; but consciousness is the end of all con- 
troversy; its evidence cannot be increased, and if it 
be distrusted, there is no alternative but universal 
scepticism. Our consciousness of the mode of men- 
tal action in choice, as uncoerced and free, equals our 
consciousness of existence itself; and the man who 
doubts either, gives indications of needing medical 
treatment instead of argument. When a man does 
wrong, and then reflects upon the act, he feels that 
he was free and is responsible; and so w T hen he looks 
forward to a future action. When, for example, he 
deliberates whether he shall commit a theft, he list- 
ens to the pleading of cowardice or conscience on 
the one side, and of covetousness and laziness on the 
other. All these things come up and are looked at, 
and after considering them, he at length screws up 
his mind to the point and does the deed ; and w r hen 
he has done it, does he not know, does he not feel, 
that he could have chosen the other way? If not, 
why did he balance when he was considering? Did 
he not know that he had power to act, and power 
to leave it undone? And when it is past recal, is he 
not conscious that he need not have done it? And 
does he not say in his remorse, lam sorry that I did it? 
Isay,therefore,it is a matter of common consciousness 
to all mankind, that they act uncoerced and with the 
power of acting otherwise. Give a child an apple and 
an orange; after he has eaten the orange, he will wish 
he had it back again,'and he will say I wish I had eaten 
the apple and kept the orange. But why, if he did not 



44 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Universal consciousness, illustrated. 

feel that at the time he had the power to keep the 
orange and eat the' apple? Yes, men have the power; 
and the consciousness that they have it, will go with 
them through eternity. What says God, when he 
warns the sinner of the consequences of his evil 
choice? ; Lest thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh 
and thy body are consumed, and say, how have I 
hated instruction and my heart despised reproof, and 
have not obeyed the voice of my teacher, nor in- 
clined mine ear to them that instructed me.' Incur- 
able regret will arise from the perfect consciousness 
that when he did evil he did it freely, of choice, 
under no coercion; that the act w T as his own, and 
that he is justly responsible for it. This is the 
worm that never dies; this, this is the fire that never 
shall be quenched. And because this consciousness 
is in men, you never can reason them out of a sense 
of their accountability. Many have tried it, but none 
have effectually, or for any length of time succeeded; 
and the reason is plain, there is nothing which the 
mind is more conscious of than the fact of its own 
voluntary action w 7 ith the power of acting right or 
wrong — the mind sees and knows, and regrets when 
it has done wrong. Take away this consciousness and 
there is no remorse. You cannot produce remorse, 
as long as a man feels that his act was not his own — 
that it was not voluntary but the effect of compul- 
sion. He may dread the consequences, but you 
never can make him feel remorse for the act on its 
own account. This is the reason why men who 
have reasoned away the existence of God and argued 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



45 



Universal consciousness, illustrated. 

to prove that the soul is nothing but matter, know, 
as soon as they reflect, that all their reasoning is false. 
There is a lamp within, which they cannot extinguish; 
and after all their metaphysics, they are conscious 
that they act freely, and that there is a God to whom 
they are accountable; and hence it is that when they 
cross the ocean, and a storm comes on, and they 
expect to go to the bottom, they begin straightway 
to pray to God and confess their sins.' 

The natural impossibility of choosing otherwise 
than we do choose, is contrary, then, not only to the 
common sense and intuitive perceptions of men, but 
contrary to their internal conscipusness. There is a 
deep and universal consciousness in all men as to the 
freedom of choice; and in denying this, you reverse 
God's constitution of man. You assume that God 
gave a deceptive constitution to mind, or a deceptive 
consciousness. Now I think that God is as honest 
in the moral world as he is in the natural world. I 
believe that in our consciousness he tells the truth; 
and that the natural constitution, and universal feelings 
and perceptions of men are the voice of God speaking 
the truth; and if the truth is not here, where may we 
expect to find it? 

It has been insisted by some, that in looking for the 
ground of accountability, men never go beyond the 
fact itself of voluntariness; if the deed, whether good 
or evil, be voluntary, that satisfies. It does; but it is 
because all men include, unfailingly, both in their the- 
ory and consciousness, the supposition of powers of 
agency unhindered and uncoerced by any fatal neces- 

5 



46 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Power of choice practically acknowledged. 

sity. Bat convince them that choice is an effect, over 
which mind has no more control than over the drops 
of rain, and the common sense of the world would 
revolt against the accountability of choice, merely be- 
cause it was choice. There is therefore a universal 
practical confession of man's free agency, as including 
the capacity of choice, uncoerced and free. All men 
claim a desert of reward for welldoing, and com- 
plain of ingratitude and injustice, when it is denied. 
They admit and insist that those who injure them in 
person, good name, or substance, deserve punishment. 
They admit that laws, and rewards, and punishments 
are necessary to the government of men, and just, 
when administered according to their deeds. Even 
atheists and fatalists can rail against superstition 
and priestcraft, and bigotry, and persecution, as 
deserving execration and punishment; an evidence 
that when consciousness and common sense prevail, 
their sceptical theory is a dead letter. A nation of 
atheists were constrained, in words and deeds, to 
falsify their philosophy; and in the family and in the 
government, to talk and act as if men were free 
agents, and accountable for their deeds. 

XI. All attempts to govern man and form his char- 
acter, and elevate his condition, upon any other sup- 
position than his spontaneous agency, perverts his 
nature and debases society. Just in proportion as 
mental culture is superseded by force, he sinks in the 
scale of being till he becomes a stupid or a ferecious 
animal. Treat men as if they were dogs, and soon 
they will act like dogs. But the moment you treat 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



47 



No obligation to do impossibilities. God cannot work impossibilities. 

them as free moral agents and responsible for their 
actions, that moment you begin to elevate them: 
treat a child with affection, repose confidence in 
him, and address his reason, he feels that he is raised, 
and he acts accordingly; and just as you depart from 
this course, you become unable to manage your child. 
He gets out of your hands 5 he gets above you; for as 
respects his relation to you, he is indomitable. The 
will of man is stronger than anything in the uni- 
verse, except the Almighty God; and if you disregard 
this truth, you ruin your child. 

XII. God requires of his subjects only conformity 
to himself — to his own moral excellence; but he 
admits of no obligation on himself to work impossi- 
bilities: and does he impose obligations on his subjects, 
which he himself refuses to assume ? He does not regard 
it as an excellence in himself to work impossibilities: 
does he command it as a virtue in his subjects? 

He has no desire to work impossibilities himself: 
why should he desire it in his creatures? He has 
never tried, and never will try, to work an impossibi- 
lity: and why should he command his creatures to do 
what he himself neither desires nor tries to accomplish? 
He cannot work impossibilities: and how can it be 
thought that he will require of his creatures, that 
which he himself cannot do? 

XIII. This doctrine of the natural ability of 
choice, commensurate with obligation, has been, and 
is, the received doctrine of the universal orthodox 
church, from the primitive age down to this day. 
I say not that no respectable ministers or mem- 



48 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Christian fathers on freedom of the will. Justin Martyr, 

bers of the churches have held a different doctrine; 
but I say that their number is so small, and the mul- 
titude so great and continuous who have taught the 
contrary doctrine, that it stands, unimpeached and 
unbroken, as the universally received doctrine of the 
orthodox christian church in all ages. 

I begin with the doctrine of the christian fathers, 
as quoted by Dr. Scott, in his remarks on Tomline's 
Refutation of Calvinism. 

It is, however, to be remembered, and noted care- 
fully in reading this testimony of the fathers, that by 
'free willf they mean a will free as opposed to the 
coercion of fate — the supposed necessity of a series 
of natural causes, by which the wills of God and man 
w 7 ere controlled. The question whether the will is 
free in a moral sense, as biased to evil since the fall, 
or impartial and unbiased, had not then come up in 
the church. The moral bias to evil was admitted, 
taken for granted, and not publicly controverted till 
the time of Pelagius. Their doctrine of free will, 
therefore, is not the Pelagian or Arminian doctrine, 
but the anti-fatalism doctrine of mind free as unco- 
erced in choice, and with the power always of con- 
trary choice; and in this view, I begin with Justin 
Martyr, A. D. 140. 

' But lest any one should imagine, that I am assert- 
ing that things happen by a necessity of fate, because 
I have said that things are foreknown, I proceed to 
refute that opinion also. That punishments and 
chastisements and good rewards are given according 
to the worth of the action of every one, having learnt 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



49 



Freedom of the will — Tatian, Irenaeus. 

it from the Prophets, we declare to be true: since if 
it were not so, but all things to happen according to 
fate, nothing would be in our power; for if it were 
decreed by fate, that one should be good, and another 
bad, no praise would be due to the former, or blame 
to the latter. And again, if mankind had not the 
power, by free will, to avoid what is disgraceful and 
to choose what is good, they would not be responsi- 
ble for their actions. 5 p. 13. 

' Because God from the beginning endowed angels 
and men with free will, they justly receive punish- 
ment of their sins in everlasting fire. For it is the 
nature of every one who is born, to be capable of 
virtue and vice; for nothing would deserve praise, if 
it has not the power of turning itself away.' p. 25. 

This language of Justin is as plain as it can be. 
That to free agency and accountability, the natural 
ability of choice with power to the contrary, is indis- 
pensable. 

Tatian, A. D. 172. — 'Free will destroyed us. Be- 
ing free, we became slaves; we were sold, because of 
sin. No evil proceeds from God. We have produced 
wickedness; but those who have produced it have it 
in their power again to remove it? p. 31. [i. e. the 
natural power of choosing life or death.] 

Irenaeus, A. D. 178. — 'But man being endowed with 
reason, and in this respect like to God, being made 
free in his will, and having power over himself, is the 
cause that sometimes he becomes wheat and some- 
times chaff. Wherefore he will also be justly con- 
demned; because, being made rational, he lost true 

5* 



50 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Clement, Tertullian. 

reason; and living irrationally, he opposed the justice 
of God, delivering himself up to every earthly spirit, 
and serving all lusts.' p. 35. 

4 But if some men were bad by nature, (i. e. by a 
natural necessity) and others good — neither the good 
would deserve praise, for they were created so, nor 
would the bad deserve blame, being born so. But 
since all men are of the same nature, and able to lay 
hold of and do that which is good, and able to reject 
it again, and not do it, some justly receive praise, 
even from men, who act according to good laws, and 
some much more from God; and obtain deserved tes- 
timony of generally choosing and persevering in that 
which is good: but others are blamed, and receive the 
deserved reproach of rejecting that which is just and 
good. And therefore the Prophets enjoined men to 
do justice and perform good works. 5 p. 42. 

Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194. — 4 Neither 
praise nor dispraise, nor honors nor punishments, 
would be just, if the soul had not the power of de- 
siring and rejecting — if vice were involuntary.' p. 54. 

4 As therefore he is to be commended, who uses his 
power in leading a virtuous life; so much more is he 
to be venerated and adored, who has given us this 
free and sovereign power, and has permitted us to 
live---not having allowed what we choose or what we 
avoid to be subject to a slavish necessity.' p. 54. 

Tertullian, A. D. 200. — 4 1 find that man w r as form- 
ed by God with free will and with power over him- 
self, observing in him no image or likeness to God 
more than ir* this respect: — for he was not formed 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



51 



Freedom of the will--Origen. 

after God, who is uniform in face, bodily lines, &c. 
which are so various in mankind, but in that substance 
which he derived from God himself: that is, the soul — 
answering to the form of God; and he was stamped 
with the freedom of his will. 

4 The law itself, which was then imposed by God, 
confirmed this condition of man. For a law would 
not have been imposed on a person who had not in 
his power the obedience due to the law; nor, again\ 
would transgression have been threatened with death, 
if the contempt also of the law were not placed to the 
account of marts free will. 

' He who should be found to be good or bad by 
necessity, and not voluntarily, could not with justice 
receive the retribution either of good or evil. 5 p. 64. 
This demands no comment. 

Origen, A. D. 220. — ' Whence, consequently, we 
may understand.^ that we are not subject to necessity, 
so as to be compelled by all means to do either bad 
or good things, although it be against our will. For 
if we be masters of one will, some powers, perhaps, 
may urge us to sin, and others assist us to safety; 
yet we are not compelled by necessity to act either 
rightly or wrongly.' 

' According to us, there is nothing in any rational 
creature, which is not capable of good as well as 
evil. There is no nature that does not admit of good 
and evil, except that of God, which is the foundation of 
all goodS p. 66. 

6 We have frequently shown in all our disputations, 
that the nature of rational souls is such as to be capa^ 



52 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Cyprian, Lactantius, Eusebius. 

ble of good and evil. Every one has the power of 
choosing good and choosing evil.'' p. 67. 

' A thing does not happen because it was fore- 
known: but it was foreknown, because it would hap- 
pen. This distinction is necessary. For if any one 
so interprets what was to happen as to make what 
was foreknown necessary, we do not agree with him; 
for we do not say that it was necessary for Judas to 
be a traitor, although it was foreknown that Judas 
would be a traitor. For in the prophecies concern- 
ing Judas, there are complaints and accusations 
against him, publicly proclaiming the circumstance 
of his blame; but he would be free from blame, if he 
had been a traitor from necessity, and if it had been 
impossible for him to be like the other apostles. 5 pp. 
80, 81. 

Cyprian, A. D. 248. — 6 Yet did he not reprove 
those who left him or threaten them severely, but 
rather turning to the apostles said, " Will ye also go 
away?" preserving the law, by which man, being left 
to his own liberty and endowed with free will^ seeks for 
himself death or salvation? p. 84. 

Lactantius, A. D. 306. — ' That man has a. free will 
[i. e. able to choose either way] to believe or not to 
believe — see in Deuteronomy, " I have set before you 
life and death, blessing and cursing, therefore choose 
life that both thou and thy seed may live.' 5 5 p. 88. 

Eusebius, A. D. 315. — 'The fault is in him who 
chooses, and not in God. For God has not made 
nature or the substance of the soul bad; for he who is 
good can make nothing but what is good. Every 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



53 



First heresy- — Pagan notion of fate. 

thing is good which is according to nature, [i. e. as 
God made it.] Every rational soul has naturally a 
good free will formed for the choice of what is good. 
But when a man acts WTongly, nature is not to be 
blamed; for what is wrong takes place not according 
to nature, but contrary to nature, it being the work 
of choice and not of nature. For when a person 
who had the power of choosing what is good, did not 
choose it, but voluntarily turned away from w T hat is 
best, pursuing what was worst; what room for escape 
could be left him, who is become the cause of his own 
internal disease, having neglected the innate law, as 
it were, his savior and physician. 5 p. 91. 

In all these quotations, I repeat, the words of these 
fathers must be expounded with regard to the object 
at which their writings were directed. Let it not 
be forgotten, that the first heresy which vexed the 
church after the days of the Apostles, was the Pagan 
notion of fate, or such a necessary concatenation of 
cause and effect, as was above the will both of gods 
and men; the very gods themselves had no power 
to resist it. The same notion was involved in the 
heresy of the Gnostics, who held that all sin lay in 
matter, and that man was a sinner from necessity; 
and of the Manicheans, w T ho held that all sin was in 
the created substance of the mind. Now in resisting 
these heretics, these fathers maintained with zeal the 
doctrine of free will: meaning thereby, not an unbi- 
ased will, but a will free from the necessity of fate; 
for the philosophers, and the Gnostics, and the 
Manichean's all held the doctrine of man's natural 



■54 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Cyril, Hilary, Epiphanius. 

inability. The philosophers derived it from fate; the 
Gnostics, from the corruption of matter; the Mani- 
cheans, from the constitution and nature of the soul. 
This was the first great attack upon the truth, on 
which these venerable men were called to fix their 
sanctified vision, and it was against these several ver- 
sions of error, that they bore their testimony in favor 
of free will. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, A. D. 348. — 4 The soul has 
freewill: the devil indeed may suggest, but he has 
not also the power to compel contrary to the will. 
He suggests the thought of fornication — if you be 
willing, you accept it; if unwilling, you reject it: for 
if you committedfornication by necessity, why did God 
prepare a hell? If you acted justly by nature, [i. e. 
necessity] and not according to your own free 
choice, why did God prepare unutterable rewards f 
p. 103. 

Hilary, A. D. 304. — ; The excuse of a certain na- 
tural necessity in crimes is not to be admitted. For 
the Serpent might have been innocent, who himself 
stops his ears that they may be deafS p. 110. 

4 There is not any necessity of sin in the nature of 
men, but the practice of sin arises from the desires of 
the will, and the pleasures of vice.' 

Epiphanius, A. D. 360. — ; How does he seem to retain 
the freedom of his will in this world? For to believe, 
or not to believe, is in our own power. But where 
it is in our power to believe or not to believe, it is in 
our power to act rightly or to sin, to do good or to 
do evil.' 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



55 



Freedom of the will — Basil, Gregory, Ambrose. 

Basil, A. D. 370. — 'They attribute to the heavenly 
bodies the causes of those things that depend on every 
one's choice, I mean habits of virtue and of vice.' 

' If the origi n of virtuous or vicious actions be not 
in ourselves, but there is an innate necessity, there is 
no need of legislators to prescribe what we are to do 
and what we are to avoid; there is no need of judges 
to honor virtue or punish wickedness. For it is not 
the injustice of the thief or murderer who could not 
restrain his hand even if he would, because of the 
insuperable necessity that urges him to the actions.' 
p. 116. 

Gregory of Nazianzen, A. D. 370. — 'The good 
derived from nature has no claim to acceptance; 
but that which proceeds from free wil is deserving 
of praise. What merit has fire in burning? for the 
burning comes by nature [i. e. necessity.] What 
merit has water in descending? for this it has from 
the Creator. What merit has snow in being cold? 
or the sun in shining? for it shines whether it will or 
not.' p. 124. 

Gregory of Nyssa. — 5 Let any consider how great 
the facility to what is bad — gliding into sin spontane- 
ously without any effort. For that any one should 
become wicked, depends solely upon choice; and the 
will is often sufficient for the completion of wicked- 
ness.' p. 127. 

Ambrose, A. D. 374. — ' We are not constrained to 
obedience by a servile necessity, but by free will, 
whether we lean to virtue or to vice.' 

' No one is under obligation to commit a fault un- 
less he inclines to it from his own will.' p. 131. 



56 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Jerome. Moral Inability. Pelagian heresy. 

Jerome, A. D. 392. — ; No seed is of itself bad; for 
God made all things good; but bad seed has arisen 
from those, who by their own will are bad, which 
happens from will and not from nature,' [i. e. neces- 
sity.] p. 141 

' That we profess free will and can turn it either to 
a good or bad purpose, according to our determina- 
tion, is owing to His grace, who made us after His 
image and likeness. 5 

We have now come to Augustine. And now it 
will be necessary to avail myself of the remarks I 
made on the laws of exposition. I said that it was 
necessary, in order to a right exposition of any ancient 
instrument in the church, to take into view the con- 
troversies which prevailed at the time of its composi- 
tion. We must now apply this especially to Augus- 
tine. Down to his time, the free will and natural 
ability of man were held by the whole church, against 
the heretical notions of a blind fate, of material 
depravity, and of depravity created in the substratum 
of the soul. The great effort, hitherto, had been to 
maintain the liberty or uncoerced action of the mind 
in choice, with the power of contrary choice. But 
now Pelagius arose, and denied the doctrine of the 
fall; and from this spot it became necessary, not so 
much to prove natural ability which Pelagius admit- 
ted, as to prove moral inability, w T hich was as much 
opposed to the Pelagian heresy, as natural inability 
was to that of the Pagan philosophers, the Gnostics, 
and Manicheans. 

The church had now to enter upon a new contro- 
versy, and to fix her eye upon the question, what w 7 ere 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



57 



Freedom of the will — Augustine. 
— . , — ■ - - - — 

the consequences of the fall? The question of free 
agency was no longer to be argued, for that was not 
now controverted. Both Augustine and Pelagius ad- 
mitted it. The question which now exists between 
Dr. Wilson and myself, was not at issue between 
them. The question indeed turned on the same 
words, viz: free will; but it did not mean the same 
thing. The question between them w T as, is the will 
unbiassed? Is it in equilibrio? It was not, whether 
it was free from the necessity of fate, or the coercion 
of matter, or of created depravity; but the question 
was, has the fall given it a bias? has it struck it out 
of equilibrio? and struck the balance wrong? Pela- 
gius said, no. Augustine said, yes; and while in op- 
position to Pelagius, he denied free will, [meaning 
unbiassed will] he was as strong in favor of free will 
in the other sense, as any of the fathers before him; 
as strong as I am: so that if I am a Pelagian, Augus- 
tine was a Pelagian; although his whole strength 
was exerted against Pelagius. If what I teach is 
Pelagianism, then Augustine, and Calvin, and Luther, 
and all the best writers of the church in this age 
have been Pelagians, except the few who deny nat- 
ural ability. 

Augustine, A. D. 398. — 6 Free will is given to the 
soul, which they who endeavor to weaken by trifling 
reasoning, are blind to such a degree, that they do not 
even understand that they say those vain and sacri- 
legious things, with their own will.' p. 176. 

; Which free will, if God had not given, there could 
be no just sentence of punishment, nor reward for 

6 



58 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Luther. 

right conduct, nor a divine precept to repent of sins, 
nor pardon of sins, which God has given us through 
our Lord Jesus Christ; because he who does not sin 
with his will, does not sin at all. Which sins, as I 
have said, unless we had free will, would not be sins. 
Wherefore, if it be evident that there is no sin where 
there is not free will, I desire to know, what harm the 
soul has done, that it should be punished by God, or 
repent of sin, or deserve pardon, since it has been 
guilty of no sin.' p. 214. 

4 That there is free will, and that from thence eve- 
ry one sins if he wills, and that he does not sin, if he 
does not will, I prove not only in the divine scriptures, 
which you do not understand, but in the words of your 
own Manes himself: hear then concerning free will, 
first, the Lord himself when he speaks of two trees, 
which you yourself have mentioned: hear him saying, 
'Either make the tree good and his fruit good, or else 
make the tree corrupt and his fruit corrupt.' When, 
therefore, he says, ; do this or do that,' he shows 
power, not nature. For no one, except God, can 
make a tree, but evert one has it in his will, either 

TO CHOOSE THOSE THINGS THAT ARE GOOD AND BE A GOOD 
TREE; OR TO CHOOSE THOSE THINGS THAT ARE BAD AND BE 
A BAD TREE.' p. 215* 

The next authority I shall adduce is that of Luther, 
who holds that, in the exercise of its own faculties, 
the mind chooses, by its very constitution, just as 
much as it thinks by the exertion of its intellect. 

'There is,' he says, ' no restraint either on the di- 
vine or human will. In both cases the will does 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



59 



Freedom of the will—Calvin. 

what it does, whether good or bad, simply, and as at 
perfect liberty, in the exercise of its own faculty — so 
long as the operative grace of God is absent from us, 
every thing we do, has in it a mixture of evil; and 
therefore, of necessity, our works avail not to salva- 
tion. Here I do not mean a necessity of compulsion* 
but a necessity as to the certainty of the event. A man 
who has not the Spirit of God, does evil willingly and 
spontaneously. He is not violently impelled, aganist 
his will, as a thief is to the gallows.' — Milnor, vol. v. 
cent. 16. chap. 12. sec. 2. 

Thus we see that it was Luther's sentiment, that 
depravity does not destroy the innate liberty of the 
will, or its natural power; although it corrupts and 
perverts its exercise. 

I now proceed to quote from Calvin, who holds 
that necessity is voluntary, that is, that the will is 
under no such necessity as destroys its own power 
of choice; that there was no other yoke upon man 
but voluntary servitude; and that the doctrine for 
which I contend is not new divinity, but old Calvin- 
ism. 

Calvin says — 'That God is voluntary in his good- 
ness, Satan in his wickedness, and man in his sin.' 
' We must therefore observe,' he says, 4 that man, 
having been corrupted by the fall, sins voluntarily, 
not with reluctance or constraint; with the strongest 
propensity of disposition, not with violent coercion; 
with the bias of his own passions, and not with exter- 
nal compulsion.' He quotes Bernard, as agreeing 
with Augustine, in saying, ; Among all the animals, 



60 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Turretin. 

man alone is free; and yet by the intervention of sin, 
he suffers a species of violence, but from the will, not 
from nature: so that he is not thereby deprived of his 
innate liberty ^ Both Augustine and the Reformers 
speak, indeed, of the bondage of the will, and of the 
necessity of sinning, and of the impossibility that a 
natural man should turn and save himself without 
grace; but they explain themselves, to mean that cer- 
tainty of continuance in sin, which arises from a perver- 
ted free agency, and not from any natural impossibility. 
For ' this necessity,' they say expressly, ' is voluntary.' 
6 We are oppressed with a yoke, but no other than 
that of voluntary servitude: therefore our servitude 
renders us miserable, and our will renders us inexcu- 
sable/ See Calvin's Instit. Book ii. ch. 3. sec. 5. 

' I always exclude coercion, for we sin voluntarily, 
or it would not be sin unless it were voluntary.' 
Commentary on Rom. vii. 

My next quotation is from Turretin, the apostle of 
orthodoxy, whose works are the text book in the 
Princeton Seminary. 

' The question is not concerning the pow T er or nat- 
ural faculty of will, "a qua est ipsum velle vel nolle," 
which may be called, first power and the material prin- 
ciple of moral action: for this always remains in man, 
and by it he is distinguished from the brutes.' 

6 Velle vel nolle' means in the technics of the day, 
the power to choose or not to choose in every case; 
and this he says always remains in man in every con- 
dition, as by it he is distinguished from the brutes. 

4 The natural power of willing in whatever condi- 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



01 



Freedom of the will — Howe, Witherspoon. 

tion we may be, is never taken away from us, inso- 
much as by it we are distinguished from the brutes.' 
p. 999. 

Howe is my next witness. He was cotemporary 
with the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. He 
quotes the following w T ith approbation from Twiss. 

'The inability to do what is pleasing and accepta- 
ble to God, is not a natural, but moral inability; for 
no faculty of our nature is taken away from us 
by original sin: as saith Augustine — It has taken 
from no man the faculty of discerning truth. The 
power still remains, by which we can do whatever 
we choose. We say that the natural power of doing 
anything according to our will is preserved to all, 
but no moral power.' 

Dr. Witherspoon: — ; The sinner will perhaps say, 
But why should the sentence be so severe? The law 
may be right in itself, but it is hard, or even impossi- 
ble for me. I have no strength. I cannot love the 
Lord with all my heart. I am altogether insufficient 
for that which is good. Oh, that you would but con- 
sider what sort of inability you were under to keep 
the commandments of God. Is it natural, or is it 
moral? Is it really want of ability, or is it only 
want of will? Is it anything more than the depravi- 
ty and corruption of your hearts, which is itself crim- 
inal, and the source of all actual transgressions? Have 
you not natural faculties and understanding, will and 
affections, a wonderful frame of body and a variety 
of members? What is it that hinders them all from 
being consecrated to God? Are they not as proper 

6* 



62 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Watts, Dr. Samuel Spring. 

in every respect for his service, as for a baser pur- 
pose? When you are commanded to love God with 
all your heart, this surely is not commanding more 
than you can pay. For if you give it not to him, you 
will give it to something else that is far from being 
so deserving of it. The law, then, is not impossible, 
in the strict and proper sense, even to you.' 

6 He (the convinced sinner,) will see that there is 
nothing to hinder his compliance with every part of his 
duty, but an inward aversion to God, which is the very 
essence of sin S 

' Without perplexing ourselves with the meaning 
of the imputation of Adam's first sin, this we may be 
sensible of, that the guilt of all inheritant corruption 
must be personal, because it is voluntary and consen- 
ted to. Of both these things a discovery of the glory 
of God will powerfully convince the sinner*' 

Dr. Watts: — ; Man has lost, not his natural power 
to obey the law; he is bound, then, as far as natural 
powers will reach. I own his faculties are greatly 
corrupted by vicious inclinations, or sinful propensi- 
ties, which has been happily called by our divines a 
moral inability to fulfil the law, rather than a natural 
impossibility of it.' 

Dr. Samuel Spring of Newburyport. — ' What is 
moral action? A moral action is an exercise of the 
will or heart of man. A moral action is the volition 
of a moral agent. Nothing is moral which is not vol- 
untary. It is as absurd to talk of sin separate from 
moral exercise or volition, as it is to talk of whiteness 
separate from anything which is white. 5 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



63 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Spring of New York, Henry, Dr. Wilson. 

Dr. Spring of New York. — 'Seriously considered, 
it is impossible to sin without acting voluntarily* 
The divine law requires nothing but voluntary obe- 
dience, and forbids nothing but voluntary disobe- 
dience. As men cannot sin without acting, nor act 
without choosing to act, so they must act voluntarily 
in sinning.'— Spring's Essays , p. 120. 

This nature of sin, as actual and voluntary, he car- 
ries out in its application to infants. He says: 

'Every child of Adam is a sinner [an actual sinner] 
from the moment he becomes a child of Adam. He 
sins not in deed nor word, but in thought. The thought 
of foolishness is sin. * * * Who ever heard or 
conceived of a living immortal soul without natural 
faculties and moral dispositions? Every infant that 
has attained maturity enough to have a soul, has such 
a soul as this. It is a soul which perceives, reasons, 
remembers, feels, chooses, and has the faculty of 
judging of its own moral dispositions. 5 — Spring on 
Native Depravity, pp. 10, 14. 

Henry on Ezekiel xviii. 31. ; The reason why 
sinners die, is because they will die. They will go 
down the way that leads to death, and not come up 
to the terms on which life is offered. Herein sinners 
are most unreasonable and act most unaccountably.' 

Dr. Wilson of Philadelphia. ' No mere man is able, 
either of himself, or by any grace received in this 
life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God,' 
&c. The ability which is here denied is evidently 
of the moral kind, because the aid of the inability is 
supposed to be grace, which adds no new faculties*. 



64 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Wilson of Philadelphia. 

The passage taken from the Confession of Faith, 
chap. xvi. is a representation of the same thing. 
' This ability to do good works is not at all of them- 
selves, but wholly from the Spirit of God.' Here 
the ability spoken of, is that which the saint has, 
and the sinner has not; and is derived from the 
Spirit of God; it is therefore merely the effect of 
regenerating grace, which changes the heart, removes 
the prejudices, and thus enlightens the understanding ; 
the law T itself ought to convince such minds of their 
inability to render an acceptable righteousness, and 
thus lead them to Christ. In all these instances, the 
inability consists not in the natural, that is physical 
defects, either of mind or body; if it were such, it 
would excuse; but it consists in the party's aversion 
to holiness* This is also clear from another passage 
cited in the essay, page 15, from the Confession of 
Faith — ; A natural man being altogether averse from 
that which is good, and dead in sin, is not able, by 
his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare 
himself thereto.' Here the words ; dead in sinf 
express a higher degree of that ' aversion to good,' 
which had been predicted of man in his natural and 
unrenewed state, and suppose the party to have no 
more disposition to things spiritual and holy than a 
dead carcass possesses towards objects of sense. 
The inability or want of strength here mentioned, 
is affirmed of the natural man; and his inability, or 
that circumstance in which it consists, is pointed out 
expressly by the intercalary member, ; being alto- 
gether averse from that which is good, and dead in 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



65 



Freedom of the will — Dickinson, Davis, Edwards, Witsius. 

sin.' Language can scarcely be found more clearly 
to show, that the only culpable inability or ivant of 
strength in the sinner, lies in his aversion to that 
which is good.' pp. 14, 15. 

Dr. Dickinson, a cotemporary of Dr. Witherspoon 
in New Jersey, and a cotemporary also with Dr. Green 
in the early part of his life, has this sentiment on the 
point of discussion: ' Let inability be properly denom- 
inated and called obstinacy. 5 This was a divine of 
admitted and unimpeachable orthodoxy, a man of 
eminent abilities, a friend to revivals of religion, and 
one of the pillars of the Presbyterian church. 

President Davis, the pioneer and planter of Pres- 
byterianism in Virginia, afterward president of 
Princeton college, one of the most pungent, popular, 
and successful of preachers, inquires, ' What is ina- 
bility but unwillingness?' 

Edwards, the younger, president of Union college, 
was a Presbyterian, and what does he say? To the 
question, whether the moral inability which his 
father taught, can be removed by the sinner, his an- 
swer was: ; Yes: and the moment you deny this, you 
change the whole character of the inability together 
with the whole character of the man; for then his 
inability ceases to be obstinacy, and becomes physi- 
cal incapacity.' 

Witsius. — ; He [Adam] sinned with judgment and 
will, to which faculties, liberty, as opposed to com- 
pulsion, is so peculiar, nay essential, that there can 
be neither judgment nor will, unless they be free.' 
Vol. i. p. 198* 



66 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will— -Andover Declaration, Dr. Tyler. 

The Andover Declaration, subscribed by the profes- 
sors. — ' God's decrees perfectly consist with human li- 
berty, God's universal agency with the agency of man, 
and man's dependence with his accountability. Man 
has understanding and corporeal strength to do all 
that God requires of him; so that nothing but the 
sinner's aversion to holiness prevents his salvation.' 
Laws, p. 9. 

Dr. Tyler: see National Preacher, vol. ii. pp. 
161, 163. — 'Several doctrines of the gospel, have been 
regarded by some as presenting insuperable obsta- 
cles to their salvation. 5 

6 The doctrine of Human Depravity, has been thus 
regarded. If I am entirely depraved, the sinner some- 
times says, then I am utterly helpless. It is beyond 
my power to do anything which God requires; and, 
consequently, it is totally impossible that I should 
comply with the terms of salvation revealed in the 
gospel. This representation proceeds upon an entire 
misapprehension as to the nature of depravity. De- 
pravity does not destroy moral agency. It does not 
so impair the natural faculties of man, as to disable 
him from doing his duty, if he will. It has its seat in 
the heart, and consists in a perverse and sinful incli- 
nation. When we say, that man is entirely depraved, 
we do not mean that he is a poor, unfortunate being, 
who is commanded to do impossibilities; but we 
mean that he is a guilty rebel, who voluntarily 
refuses to yield allegiance to the God who made him. 
We mean, that he loves sin, and is unwilling to 
abandon it; that he hates his duty, and is unwilling 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



6? 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Tyler. 

to perform it; that he dislikes the terms of salvation, 
and is unwilling to comply with them. We do not 
mean, that all the powers and faculties of his soul are 
so impaired, that he could not do his duty if he would; 
but we mean that he will not do his duty when he can 
— that in the full possession of all the powers of moral 
agency, and with perfect ability to comply with the 
terms of salvation, if he will, he chooses the road that 
leads to death, and will not come to Christ that he 
might have life. This supposes no difficulty in the 
way of his salvation, except what lies in a perverse 
and obstinate will. 

; Again: the doctrine of Regeneration, is supposed to 
imply an insuperable obstacle in the way of the sin- 
ner'-s salvation. We often hear the sinner reasoning 
thus — "If I must be born again, in order to enter into 
the kingdom of God; and if this change is exclusively 
the work of the Holy Spirit; a work which he is 
under no obligations to perform, and w T hich my own 
efforts will never accomplish; then, there is a diffi- 
culty in the way of my salvation, which is beyond 
my power to remove. It does not depend on my 
will, but on the will of God, whether I shall be saved." 
But here again the sinner labors under an entire 
misapprehension, as to the nature of the change in 
question, and as to the reason why this change is 
necessary. What is it to be born again? Simply, to 
be made willing to do what God requires. It is thus 
represented in the scriptures, Thy people shall be wil- 
ling in the day of thy power. Why is it necessary, 
that men should be born again? Not because they 



68 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Woods. 

are unable to do their duty, if they will; but because 
they are unwilling to do it. It is their depravity 
which renders this supernatural change necessary. 
But their depravity is not their calamity merely, but 
their crime. It consists, as we have seen, in a per- 
verse inclination; in a voluntary and obstinate refusal 
to yield obedience to the reasonable commands of 
Jehovah. What the sinner needs, therefore, is to 
have this perverse inclination changed; that is, to be 
made willing to do what God requires. The neces- 
sity of this change, therefore, supposes no obstacle in 
the way of his salvation, except his own unwillingness 
to do his duty. 5 

Dr. Woods: Letters to Dr. Ware, ch. v. p. 183. — 
4 According to our views, there can be no such neces- 
sity in the case, as implies force or coercion, or any- 
thing contrary to perfect voluntariness. 

'What, then, is the freedom which belongs to a 
moral agent? It is freedom from that physical coer- 
cion or force, which either causes actions that are 
not voluntary; or prevents those which the agent 
chooses to perform. 

' I grant that man has a power of choosing be- 
tween different courses, and of yielding to either of 
two opposite motives.' Remarks on Ware, pp. 34, 
35, 36. 

' Men have by nature the constitution — they have 
all the faculties, essential to moral agency.' 

Third Letter to Dr. Beecher; Spirit of the Pilgrims, 
vol. vi. No. 1 , pp. 1 9 — 22. — ' I have just received your 
sermon on Dependence and Free Agency; and, 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



69 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Woods. 

according to a suggestion in your last letter to me, 
I shall proceed to remark on some of the topics which 
it introduces. 

; Between your views and mine on the subject of 
man's ability and inability, there is not, so far as I 
can judge, any real disagreement. You do indeed 
sometimes use language different from that which I 
am accustomed to use. But when you come to ex- 
plain your language, as you do in your second letter, 
and in your sermon just published, you show that you 
have a meaning which I can fully adopt. In the first 
place you do, what many who make much of man's 
ability neglect to do; that is, you clearly make the 
distinction between natural ability and inability, and 
moral. Natural ability you explain to be, " the intel- 
lectual and moral faculties which God has given to 
men, commensurate with his requirements;" — "the 
plenary powers of a free agent/' — " such a capacity 
for obedience as creates perfect obligation to obey." 
You say, it is " what the law means, when it com- 
mands us to love God with all our heart, and soul, 
and mind, and strength" The sinner, according to 
your representation, is under no natural impossibility 
to obey God; that is, it is not impossible for him to 
obey God in the same sense in which it is impossible 
for him " to create a world." To all this I fully sub- 
scribe. Here then is no room for debate. I have 
been acquainted with ministers who have differed 
widely in their language respecting human ability, 
and who have had much debate on the subject, and 
have seemed to entertain opposite opinions. But I 

7 



70 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Woods. 

doubt not, they would all coincide with the above 
statements. They would all admit that man has 
those intellectual and moral faculties which consti- 
tute him a moral agent, justly accountable for his 
actions, and under perfect obligation to obey the 
divine law. But all would not judge it best to give 
to these faculties the name of ability, or even of na- 
tural ability. In regard to the words by which the 
sentiment, held by them all, may most properly be 
expressed, there would be a difference. And would 
not this be the only difference? And would not any 
dispute on the subject be logomachy? Suppose a 
minister of Christ does not like the expression, that 
sinners have a natural ability to obey the divine 
law. But he admits that they have those faculties of 
mind which constitute them moral and accountable 
beings, put them under a perfect obligation to obey, 
and bring on them a just condemnation for disobedi- 
ence. That is, he admits all that you mean by 
natural ability, though he does not use the language. 
Respecting this, you and he may differ. But the 
moment you lay aside the word, ability, and use 
other words expressing exactly what you mean by 
this, the difference between you and him is ended. 
You both believe that sinners have all the powers 
necessary to moral agents, and that they are under 
perfect obligation to do what God commands; though 
you may perhaps ^attach more importance to this 
view of the subject, and may give it more importance 
in your preaching, than he thinks proper. 

'The same as to inability. I find from your expla- 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



71 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Woods. 

nations, that you believe the sinner to be the subject 
of all the inability which I have ever attributed to 
him. You say that man, in his unrenewed state, is 
" destitute of holiness and prone to evil;" that he has 
" an inflexible bias of will to evil;" " a sinfulness of 
heart and obliquity of will, which overrule and per- 
vert his free agency only to purposes of evil;" that 
he has " an obstinate will, which as really and cer- 
tainly demands the interposition of special divine 
influence, as if his inability were natural;" that " his 

NATURAL ABILITY NEVER AVAILS, EITHER ALONEj OR BY ANY 
POWER OF TRUTH, OR HELP OF MAN, TO RECOVER HIM FROM 

alienation to obedience;" that "the special renovating 
influence of the Spirit is indispensable to his salva- 
tion;" " that motives and obligation are by his obsti- 
nacy swept away;" and " that it is the work of the 
Holy Spirit to convince him of sin, to enlighten his 
mind, to renew his will, and to persuade and enable 
him to embrace Christ;" that " the powers requisite 
to free agency, which still remain in degenerate man, 
are wholly perverted, and hopeless of recovery, with- 
out the grace of God;" "that men, as sinners, are 
dependant on Christ for a willingness to do any thing 
which will save their souls." You hold it to be " a 
fact, that mind, once ruined, never recovers itself;" 
that the disease rages on, unreclaimed by its own 
miseries, and only exasperated by rejected reme- 
dies;" that " the main-spring of the soul for holy 
action, is gone, and that divine influence is the only 
substitute." 

' You not only make these just and moving repre- 



72 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Woods. 

sentations of the state of unregenerate man, but you 
expressly speak of him as having an inability to obey 
God. You make the " distinction between the 
ability of man as a free agent, and his inability as a 
sinner" and say, " it is a distinction singularly plain, 
obvious to popular apprehension, and sanctioned by 
the common sense of all men.' 5 You fully justify the 
language of the Bible in ascribing to man, " inability 
to obey the gospel." You quote the passages which 
declare, that "the carnal mind cannot be subject to 
the law of God; — that they who are in the flesh can- 
not please God;" and you say the inability spoken of 
means the impossibility of becoming holy by any phi- 
losophical culture of the natural powers, or by any 
possible modification of our depraved nature;" though 
you very properly take care to guard us against sup- 
posing, that the inability of sinners implies "an abso- 
lute natural impossibility," or has " a. passive, material 
import." You say, also, that " no language is more 
frequent in the common intercourse of men, than the 
terms, unable, cannot, and the like, to express slight, 
or determined and unchanging aversion; and that the 
same use of these terms pervades the Bible;" that 
44 inability, meaning only voluntary aversion, or per- 
manent choice or disinclination, is ascribed to God, 
to Christ, and to good men in as strong terms, as ina- 
bility to obey the gospel is ascribed to sinners." 

4 In regard to the above cited representations of 
yours, I see no ground for controversy. I am aware 
that, in your preaching, you are accustomed to say 
less frequently than many others, that sinners cannot 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



73 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Woods. 

believe and obey. But even if you should think it 
best, as some do, to go farther, and wholly to avoid 
expressions of that kind; still while, in other words, 
you attribute to the sinner every thing which I and 
others mean by such expressions, there would be no 
difference except in words. In the unmeasured abun- 
dance of remarks which have lately been made on 
the subject of ability and inability, it has not been 
always remembered that the principal, if not the only 
difference, which exists among thinking and candid 
men, is verbal* If this should be kept in mind, as it 

OUGHT TO BE, AND IF MEN WHO ARE GOING TO DISPUTE, 
WOULD JUST STOP TO INQUIRE WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO 
DISPUTE ABOUT, IT WOULD VERY MUCH NARROW THE 
GROUND OF DEBATE, AND DIMINISH, IF NOT REMOVE, THE 
OCCASIONS OF STRIFE, 

6 Still I hold the question about the use of particular 
words to be of no small importance. Words are the 
usual means of conveying the thoughts of our own 
minds to the minds of others. If then our words are 
not well chosen, we may fail of communicating what 
we wish, and may communicate something very 
different; and so the gift of speech, instead of con- 
tributing to useful purposes, may become positively 
hurtful. 

6 It is not my design to controvert any of the posi- 
tions which you lay down on the subject of ability 
and inabilty. Putting a candid and fair construction 
on your lang uage, and considering you as agreeing 
with those excellent authors to whom you refer with 

approbation, I am satisfied, as I have before said, 

7* 



74 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Bellamy. 

that there is no material difference between your 
opinions and mine on this subject. My remarks 
therefore will relate chiefly, if not wholly, to modes of 
expression; though not so much to any which you em- 
ploy, as to those employed by others. There is 
danger, I think, of a wrong impression being made on 
the minds of men from the manner in which some 
preachers speak respecting the sinner's ability. And 
although there is much in what you have lately 
given to the public, which is well calculated to guard 
against this danger, I humbly conceive that still 
greater caution in your manner of treating the sub- 
ject, would do no hurt.' 

Dr. Bellamy. — ' The law is exactly upon a level 
with our natural capacities; it only requires us to 
love God with all our hearts. Hence, as to natural 
capacity, all mankind are capable of a perfect conform- 
ity to this law; for the law requires of no man any 
more than to love God with all his heart. The sin- 
ning angels have the same natural capacities now, as 
they had before they fell ; they have the same facul- 
ties, called the understanding and will; they are still 
the same beings as to their natural powers. Their 
temper, indeed, is different; but their capacity is the 
same; therefore, as to natural capacity, they are as ca- 
pable of a perfect conformity to the law of their Cre- 
ator as ever they were. So Adam, after his fall, had the 
same soul that he had before, as to his natural capa- 
cities, though of a very different temper; and therefore, 
in that respect, was as capable of a perfect conformity 
to the law as ever. And it is plainly the case, that 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



75 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Samuel Hopkins. 

all mankind, as to their natural capacities, are capable 
of a perfect conformity to the law, from this, that 
when sinners are converted, they have no new nat- 
ural faculties though they have a new temper; and 
when they come to love God with all their hearts in 
heaven, still they will have the same hearts, as to their 
natural faculties, and may, in this respect, be justly 
looked upon as the very same beings. When, therefore, 
men cry out against the holy law of God, which re- 
quires us only to love him with all our hearts, and 
say, "It is not just in God to require more than we 
can do, and then threaten to damn us for not doing," 
they ought to stay awhile, and consider what they 
say, and tell what they mean by their can do; for it 
is plain, that the law is exactly upon a level with our 
natural capacities, and that, in this respect, w r e are 
fully capable of a perfect conformity thereto. And 
it will be impossible for us to excuse ourselves by an 
inability arising from any other quarter." "And 
finally, this want of a good temper, this voluntary 

AND STUBBORN AVERSION TO God, AND LOVE TO THEM- 
SELVES, THE WORLD, AND SIN, IS ALL THAT RENDERS THE 
IMMEDIATE INFLUENCES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT SO ABSO- 
LUTELY NECESSARY, OR INDEED AT ALL NEEDFUL, TO RE- 
COVER AND BRING THEM TO LOVE GoD WITH ALL THEIR 

hearts." 5 — True Religion Delineated, Disc. I. Sec. 3. 

Dr. Samuel Hopkins. — ' It has been thought and 
urged by many, that fallen man cannot be wholly 
blameable for his moral depravity, because he has 
lost his power to do that which is good, and is wholly 
unable to change and renew his depraved heart. But 



76 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Smalley. 

what has been before observed must be here kept in 
mind, that man has not lost any of his natural powers 
of understanding and will, &c, by becoming sinful. 
He has lost his inclination, or is wholly without any 
inclination to serve and obey his Maker, and entirely 
opposed to it. In this his sinfulness consists; and in 
this lies his blame and guilt, and in nothing else; and 
the stronger and more fixed the opposition to the law 
of God is, and the farther he is from any inclination 
to obey, the more blameable and inexcusable he is. 
Nothing but the opposition of the heart, or will of 
man, to coming to Christ, is or can be in the way of 
his coming. So long as this continues, and his heart 
is wholly opposed to Christ, he cannot come to him, 
it is impossible, and will continue so, until his unwil- 
lingness, his opposition to coming to Christ, be re- 
moved by a change and renovation of his heart by 
divine grace, and be made willing in the day of God's 
power.' 'Nothing is necessary but the renovation 
of the will) in order to set every thing right in the 
human soul.'— System of Divinity, Part I. Ch. 8, and 
Part II. Ch. 4. 

Dr. Smalley. — -'The whole Bible evidently goes 
upon the supposition that man is a free agent; and so 
do all mankind in their treatment of one another.' 
6 It is certain that no natural men, except idiots, or 
such as are quite delirious, are totally incapable of 
good works for want of understanding.' ; The power 
of will is not the deficiency in natural men.' 'Were 
men destitute of understanding to know what is right; 
or destitute of power to choose according to their 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



77 



Freedom of the will— Dr. Stephen West, Dr. Nathan Strong. 

own disposition; or destitute of members to act, ac- 
cording to their own choice; they would so far not 
be proper subjects of commands, and no blame would 
lie upon them for not obeying. But no such powers 
of moral agency are the things wanting in natural 
men. They have hands and heads sufficiently good; 
and a sufficient power to will whatever is agreeable 
to them. All they want is a good heart. Their in- 
ability is therefore their sin, and not their excuse.' — 
Sermons 10, 16. 

Dr. Stephen West. — 'It therefore appeareth, that 
all those voluntary exercises and affections which are 
required of us in the divine law, may be said to be in 
our power. There is no opposition to any obedience 
which is claimed by the divine law, except it be in 
our wills.'- — On Moral Agency, Part L Sec. 2. 

Dr. Nathan Strong. — 6 Here the proud heart ob- 
jects. Can this be cause of rejoicing, that I am in the 
hand of a most absolute sovereign? Is this consis- 
tent with my dignity as a rational creature and a free 
agent? Truly it is. If thy reason be exercised right, 
all its dictates will be in conformity to the sovereign 
counsel and acting of God. If thy heart be opposed 
to infinite reason, or prejudices thy reason, it is the 
depravity of thy heart, and not the sovereignty of 
God, which degrades, and takes dignity away from 
thee. Neither is thy dignity as a free agent lessened. 
Art thou not as free in sinning, as the holy angels 
and holy men are in loving and obeying God? Is not 
sin thy choice? Dost thou not sin because thou lovest 
sin? The sovereignty of God will never destroy thy 



78 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Dwight. 

freedom as a rational agent, but an evil use of this 
freedom hath made thee base, and without repentance, 
will be the means of thy misery forever,' — Sermons, 
vol. L Ser. 4. 

Dr. Dwight. — ' The nature of this inability to obey 
the law of God is, in my own view, completely indi- 
cated by the word indisposition, or the word disincli- 
nation? 6 The real and only reason why we do not 
perform this obedience [perfect obedience to the law 
of God] is, that we do not possess such a disposition 
as that of angels. Our natural powers are plainly 
sufficient: our inclination only defective.' 4 There is 
no more difficulty in obeying God, than in doing any 
thing else, to which our inclination is opposed with 
equal strength and obstinacy.' 'Indisposition to come 
to Christ, is the true and the only difficulty which 
lies in our way. Those who cannot come, therefore, 
are those, and those only, who will not. The words 
can and cannot, are used in the Scriptures, just as 
they are used in the common intercourse of mankind, 
to express willingness ox unwillingness? ' From these 
observations it is evident, that the disobedience of 
mankind is their own fault.' And 'the degree of our 
inability to obey the divine law, does in no case les- 
sen our guilt.' And 'these observations teach us the 
propriety of urging sinners to immediate repentance.' 
— Theology, Sermon 133. 

The Assembly's narrative for 1819, declares that 
the destruction of the finally impenitent is charged 
'wholly upon their own unwillingness to accept of 
the merciful provision made in the gospel.' 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



79 



Freedom of the will— Dr. John Matthews. 

Rev, John Matthews, D. D., Theological Professor 
of South Hanover Seminary, commended by Dr. 
Wilson as correct. — 'Our case though in some res- 
pects it bears a striking resemblance to those who 
sleep in the grave, yet in others is widely different. 
They make no opposition to the active pursuits of 
life. Nor does any blame attach to them on account 
of their insensibility. Not so, however, with us. We 
have eyes, but we see not; ears, but we hear not; we 
have indeed all the intellectual faculties and moral 
powers which belong to rational beings, but they are 
devoted to the world; they are employed against God 
and his government. Instead of love, the heart is 
influenced by enmity against God. Instead of re- 
pentance, there is hardness of heart. Instead of faith, 
by which the Savior is received^ there is unbelief by 
which with all his blessings he is rejected. We pos- 
sess, indeed, all the natural faculties which God de- 
mands in his service; but we are without the moral 
power. We have not the disposition, the desire, to 
employ them in his service. This want of disposition, 
instead of furnishing the shadow of excuse for our 
unbelief and impenitence, is the very essence of sin, 
the demonstration of our guilt. Here, then, is work 
for Omnipotence itself. Here is not only insensibility 
to be quickened, but here is opposition, here is enmity 
to be destroyed. The art and maxims of men may 
change, in some degree, the outward appearances, 
but they never can reach the seat of the disease. 
There it will remain, and there it will operate, after 
all that created wisdom and power can do. That 



30 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Freedom of the will — Dr. Wilson. 

power which can start the pulse of spiritual life 
within us, must reach and control the very origin of 
thought, must change our very motives. Our case 
would be hopeless, if our restoration depended on 
the skill and efforts of created agents. 5 

I now beg leave to adduce the testimony of Dr. 
Wilson himself. This passage from Dr. Matthews 
goes the whole length of all that I hold in respect to 
natural ability. If this is not heresy, it is all I mean, 
and all I teach, or ever did teach. If Dr. Wilson is 
not opposed to this, then he has misunderstood me, 
and he and I think alike. If he agrees to this, then 
he and I do agree; for I challenge man or angel to find 
anything like a discrepancy, and I challenge him to 
find any. That he does agree to this is manifest, and 
two things which are equal to the same, are equal to 
each other. In the notes he says: 

; Thus it is evident, that without conference or 
correspondence, or even personal acquaintance, there 
are ministers in the Presbyterian church, who can 
and do speak the same things, who can and do speak 
the language of the true reformers in all ages. May 
the Lord increase their number and bind up the breach 
of his people.' 

My argument is this: — The fact that these writers 
held the opinions which they have here declared, I 
do not bring as proof absolute that the Confession of 
Faith teaches as they held; but that it is altogether 
probable the framers of that instrument belonging to 
this class of men, and standing in the same rank with 
them, did not teach doctrines in direct contradiction 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



31 



Qualifications for moral gov't — natural ability-scriptural argument. 

to this, I have brought down these testimonies to 
the present time, because these expositions throw 
light upon the pages of the Confession, by showing 
the impression which it made on these writers, and 
the sense in which they received it. It would be one 
of the strongest anomalies in the whole history of the 
human mind, that men who knew all about the con- 
troversy of Augustine and Pelagius, as well as the 
controversy which preceded, should, when they sat 
down to make a Confession of Faith, go directly 
against the whole stream of the Faith of the church. 

Such is the testimony of the Christian fathers, and 
the received doctrine of the orthodox church, from 
the beginning to this day. I now add: 

XIV. That the Bible teaches the free agency and 
natural ability of man to obey or disobey, uncoerced 
by any natural necessity or hindrance, as his qualifi- 
cation for moral government, and the foundation of 
his obligation and accountability. 

1. That the Bible has been understood to teach 
this by the universal orthodox church, is a strong 
presumptive argument that the Bible does teach it. 

It was made to be understood by fallen man, and 
by common uneducated minds, in respect to its most 
vital doctrines; and there is no doctrine more immedi- 
ately fundamental, than that of free agency as the 
ground of obligation and accountability. Now, the 
impression which the Bible makes on common minds, 
who, unsophisticated by theory, read and receive its 
impression, is, that there remains to man, in the esti- 
mation of heaven, the capacity of choosing whom he 

8 



32 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



The Bible understood by the holiest men as teaching natural ability, 

will serve, God or the world, and of choosing life or 
death; and that his obligation to choose good and 
refuse the evil, originates in their constitutional power 
of choice, with power of contrary choice. This is 
the popular feeling and belief of those who read the 
Bible. 

But if the uninstructed may be supposed to mis- 
take, it was certainly intended to be intelligible to 
the most talented, learned, and holy men, who make 
the study and translation and exposition of it their 
profession and habitual employment. 

But unanswerably the Bible has been understood 
to teach the doctrine of man's free agency and natu- 
ral ability, in the manner I have above explained, by 
the ablest, holiest, and most learned men. These, 
interpreting the Bible in accordance w r ith the laws of 
language and the best operations of sanctified intel- 
lect, have understood it to teach the natural ability 
of man, as the foundation of obligation, and the 
moral inability of man as consisting in a perverse 
will* If this decision of so many men of talented 
mind, and learning, and labor, is false, all attempts 
to expound the Bible are vain — the Bible is yet a 
sealed book — and all the promises of wisdom to those 
who ask, and of guidance in judgment to the meek, 
have, unanswered, been scattered to the w r ind. 

2. The implications of the Bible teach the free 
agency of man as including a natural ability to 
obey, as the qualification for moral government, and 
the foundation of accountability. 

The directory precepts, the commands and prohi- 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



83 



Commands, prohibitions, &c. of the Bible, imply natural ability. 

bitions, the rewards and punishments, the exhorta- 
tions, warnings, entreaties, and expostulations of 
the Bible teach this — the oath of God's preference 
that fallen man should obey rather than disobey; 
and the regrets and the wonder of heaven at his 
obstinacy and unbelief, teach the same; and the 
punishment, executed not only for what he did 
do that was wrong, but because in place of this, 
he did not do what was right, because he did not turn$ 
did not repent, did not believe, all imply ability. 
That such implications are multiplied throughout the 
Bible, will not be denied: that they do strongly imply 
capacity of right or of wrong choice, and are based 
on that supposition, is equally plain. But what 
would be thought of a human government that 
should address such language to stocks and stones, 
or to animals, or to machines moved by steam 
or water power? And why should they be ad- 
dressed to man, if he has no more power to obey 
than these? 

If obedience to commands, exhortations, and en- 
treaties, is prevented by a constitutional necessity, a 
natural impossibility of choosing right; and the diso- 
bedient choice is also the unavoidable, coerced result 
of a constitutional necessity, over which the will has 
no power, but of which, it is the unavoidable effect: 
then choice is as much the effect of a natural cause, 
as any other natural effect; and directory precepts, 
and rewards and penalties, and exhortations and 
entreaties are as irrelevant and superfluous, as if they 
were addressed to our appetites, or applied to secure 



84 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Implication the most uniform mode of scriptural teaching. 

the beating of the heart, or the circulation of the 
blood. 

If a created constitution secures the volition, what- 
ever it may be, what need of another apparatus to 
produce it? Is not one cause sufficient; and if it 
were not, why add an apparatus which is totally 
irrelevant and powerless? The adoption of law and 
motive, then, as the means of moral government, im- 
plies irresistibly that God's unerring wisdom has not 
entrusted the will of men, like instinctive actions, to 
the guardianship of natural causes, and has committed 
it to the guidance and guardianship of law, and 
reward and punishment, w T ith such capacity that 
choice in accordance with requirement is possible, 
and reasonable; and contrary choice, possible also, 
and inexcusable, and justly punishable. On this ar- 
gument, we observe: 

That these implications of the Bible do clearly and 
in the strongest possible manner, treat the doctrine 
of man's free agency and natural ability to obey or 
disobey the gospel, as the foundation of his obligation. 
Implication is the most uniform and established mode 
of scriptural teaching in respect to natural, mental, 
and moral philosophy. It teaches almost nothing by 
formal definitions, and regular propositions, and 
proofs; but assumes and takes for granted whatever 
truths of this kind it has occasion to recognize. But 
the assumptions of an inspired unerring book, the 
assumptions of Him who created and organized the 
world, and forms and governs the mind, are the most 
powerful, unequivocal, infallible mode of teaching. 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



85 



All the assumptions of the Bible, marked with uniform exactness. 

In demonstration, men may err, and come out with 
false conclusions; but God, in his assumptions, cannot 
err. The Bible, therefore, teaches in the most direct, 
and forcible manner, the free agency and natural 
ability of men as qualified subjects of moral govern- 
ment. The supposition that these assumptions of 
the Bible are not true, and that man, after all, is not 
able to modify and diversify his choice indefinitely, 
but chooses sin or holiness by a coercive necessity 
— that he cannot but sin when he does sin, more than 
rivers of muddy water can purify themselves, and stop 
flowing — and cannot turn and prefer the Creator to 
the creature, more than the prone waters can roll 
back their tide to their fountains; destroys the credi- 
bility of the Bible as an inspired book. 

Hitherto, all the assumptions of the Bible have 
been marked with a uniform and wonderful exactness. 

Its astronomical, geographical, historical, chrono- 
logical, and all other implications are always verified 
in the results of the strictest examination. 

And it is necessary to the credibility of the Bible 
that it should be so. If it spoke of the visible heavens 
different from their appearance to the eye — and if 
its geography, and chronology, and natural history, 
were at every step falsified by scientific investiga- 
tions — if the lion and the ostrich and the war-horse of 
the Bible were verified by no correspondences in na- 
ture, and all its assumptions of countries, and scenery, 
and natural productions, were contradicted by the 
condition of the countries alluded to, it would disprove 



86 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Philosophy corroborates the verity of the Bible in all its assumptions. 

the credibility of the Bible as an inspired book. In- 
fidels aware of this fact, have made ceaseless efforts 
to catch the Bible tripping some where in the field 
of natural science, and have exulted exceedingly 
when they supposed they had detected a few mis- 
takes of this description. But no sooner did the 
lamp of true philosophy follow the footsteps of their 
presumptuous ignorance, than it dissipated their pre- 
mature rejoicing, by discovering the exact verity of 
the Bible in all its assumptions of the attributes and 
laws of nature. 

But what would be said, if in tracing the implica- 
tions of the Bible, in respect to the qualifications of 
mind, for accountable agency and government by 
law, w T e should find them all contradicted? While 
natural philosophy verified, mental and moral phi- 
losophy contradicted, the fundamental principles it 
takes for granted. The Bible assuming every where 
that man is free to choose with power of contrary 
choice; when, in fact, as the truth is developed, it ap- 
pears that he is no more able, as a free agent to choose 
at all, than a spark is to strike itself out without the 
collision of flint and steel, and no more able to choose 
otherwise than he does choose, than water is to be 
fire, and fire water. 

Christianity could not stand before such contradic- 
tions of revelation by science. It would open upon 
■us the floodgates of an all-pervading, irresistible infi- 
delity. Nay, it would not stop at infidelity — it would 
undermine all confidence in consciousness or argu- 
ment, and terminate in universal scepticism. 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



87 



The Bible in no way contradicts its own implications. 

Our argument against transubstantiation is, that 
our senses are a correct revelation of the reality 
and attributes of external things; that no written 
revelation from heaven can contradict the testimony 
of this constitutional revelation by the senses con- 
cerning attributes of external objects, without sup- 
posing the conflict of contrary revelations, which 
would not only destroy the credibility of the Bible, 
but vacate all confidence in the testimony of the 
senses. 

These implications are corroborated by the analogy 
of cause and effect through all the works of God — by 
the common sense and universal consciousness of 
i men — by all the results of mental analysis, uniting 
philosophers in the definition of free agency — and 
by the concession of individuals and the public sen- 
timent of the world, as disclosed in moral govern- 
ment as the means of elevating society. But if these 
implications of the Bible of a free agency and natural 
ability to obey commensurate with law thus corrob- 
orated, are not true, it brings on the Bible over- 
whelming evidence of incorrect teaching; and if on 
this tremendous subject all its implications are false, 
the Bible fails to sustain its claims, and the whole 
system of revelation and its doctrines goes out in 
darkness. 

3. The Bible does in no way contradict its own im- 
plications, by teaching the natural ability of man to 
render to God a holy and spiritual obedience. 

It applies to fallen man in respect to spiritual obe- 
dience the terms, 4 cannot, unable,' &c. This is not 



88 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



The term inability, used in two senses. 

denied — it is admitted — it is insisted on. But the 
question is, what does the term inability mean, when 
applied to a free agent and a totally depraved sin- 
ner — are the terms, ' cannot, unable,' &c. used in 
common language of men and in the Bible only in 
one sense, and that the sense of a natural impossibil- 
ity? If so, the question is settled, and we are at 
fault? But if there are two senses in which these 
terms are used in common and in scriptural language, 
one of which means a natural impossibility, and the 
other respects an event possible, in respect to the 
capacity of the agent, but prevented by a perverse 
choice; then to deny this distinction, and condense 
both, by an arbitrary assertion, into a natural im-, 
possibility, is to beg the question in dispute — to 
do violence to the laws of exposition, and substi- 
tute assertion for argument. Yet this, so far as I 
am apprised, is the course which has been adop- 
ted to disprove the natural ability of man to obey. 
Those passages which mean aversion and obsti- 
nacy in sin, and the certainty of his perdition, with- 
out the special grace of God, are assumed to mean a 
natural impossibility. The terms 'cannot and un- 
able,' which have no reference to his capacity as a 
free agent, and respect only and wholly his charac- 
ter and obstinacy as a sinner, are quoted, unexplained 
and unproved, in respect to their assumed meaning; 
and, merely by the reiteration of unexplained sound, 
the doctrine of moral inability is attempted to be 
battered down, and that of a natural inability to be 
established. But who does not see that I have an 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



89 



The Bible speaks of inability as the aversion of the will to God. 

equal right to assume the meaning of moral inability 
as the only meaning of the term, and, by the power 
of reiterated assertion, to beat down my adversary, as 
he has to battle me with unexplained words, taken for 
granted, by force of mere assertion; and that both of 
us, in doing so, would violate the laws of philology 
and correct controversy? As soon as the meaning 
of the texts, applied to man and quoted to prove his 
natural inability, are explained, it appears that they 
respect his character as a sinner, and not his consti- 
tution as a free agent, and are nothing to the purpose 
to prove what they are quoted to prove. If they 
mean a moral inability, the mere voluntary aversion 
of a free agent to obey the gospel, then they do not 
mean or teach the natural impossibility of believing, 
and the moral inability of the sinner may be per- 
fectly consistent with the natural ability of the free 
agent. 

With this lamp in our hand, all becomes clear. 
Whenever the Bible speaks of inability in moral 
things, it speaks of the sin of the will, its aversation 
to good. Yet where has Dr. Wilson, in the whole 
course of his argument in support of his charges 
against me, ever once defined the term 'cannot?' 
where has he recognized this obvious distinction, and 
the manner of its application? He has insisted on a 
a single^meaning of the term, which meaning he 
assumes, and then denies all right of explanation. As 
soon as the word is explained, he is gone. These 
words, like all other words, are to be tried by the 
principles of exposition, by the established usus lo- 



90 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Words used with different significations — illustration. 

quendi, and not by their sound on the tympanum of 
the ear; or else Jesus Christ might as well have 
spoken Greek to men who understood nothing but 
English. Take an illustration on this subject: Sup- 
pose an assault was committed; the case is carried 
into court, where the assault is admitted, and the 
only question arising, is a question of damages, A 
witness appears and is asked, Did you see this 
assault? Yes, I saw A strike B. How hard did he 
strike him? I don't know; I can't exactly tell how 
hard; A was a very nervous man. ; Oh!' cries the 
lawyer in favor of A, 6 if he was a very nervous man, 
he must have been too feeble to hurt him much. 5 
Another witness is introduced and asked, How hard 
did A strike B? I can't exactly tell, he says. 
What sort of a man was A? Oh! he was a very 
stout, brawny man; a very nervous, athletic man. 
' Then,' says the attorney on the other side, 'if he 
was a nervous man, no doubt he must have hurt my 
client exceedingly, and he is entitled to heavy dama- 
ges.' On this a dispute arises as to the testimony, and 
it turns on the meaning of the word 'nervous.' One 
of the attorneys brings into court Webster's Diction- 
ary, and shows that nervous means, of weak nerve, 
feeble: and there he stops. Would this settle the 
question? Would this determ me the meaning of the 
testimony? Just so with the word inability. It has 
two meanings, according as it is applied. It may 
either mean a total want of power, or a total want of 
inclination. 

4. The subject, and the circumstances of the 



NATURAL ABILITY. 91 
Natural impossibility of obedience in a free agent, a contradiction. 

case, forbid the construction of a natural impos- 
sibility, as relating to man in the case of duty; 
because the subject is admitted to be a free agent, 
and free agency is known and defined, and by the 
Confession itself is admitted to be, the capacity of 
choice, with power of contrary choice. A free 
agent to whom spiritual obedience is a natural im- 
possibility, is a contradiction. By the laws of expo- 
sition, I am entitled to all the collateral evidence 
which can be thrown upon the meaning of the 
Confession, from the several sources of expository 
knowledge already enumerated, and which I will not 
here recapitulate. Dr. Wilson insists that man is 
able to do nothing — but nothing is a slender founda- 
tion on which to rest the justice of the Eternal 
Throne, in condemning men to everlasting punish- 
ment, and feeble indeed would be God's gripe upon 
the conscience. But it will be easy to show that the 
strongest passages relied on to prove natural inabil- 
ity, are forbidden to be interpreted in that sense, by 
the established laws of exposition. For example, it 
is said, John vi. 44: 6 No man can come unto me, 
except the Father which hath sent me draw him.' 
The nature of the inability here declared, is indicated 
by the kind of drawing which is to overcome it. 
This is taught in the verse immediately following, 
and elsewhere in the Bible. 6 It is written in the 
prophets, they shall be taught of God: every man, 
therefore, that hath read and hath learned of the 
Father cometh unto me.' The drawing of the Father, 
then, without which no man can come, according to 



92 NATURAL ABILITY. 

Impediment to obedience overcome by moral means, not by force. 



prophetic exposition, quoted and sanctioned by our 
Redeemer, is in being ' taught of God,' in reading and 
learning of the Father, and this is precisely the doc- 
trine of our Confession. ' God maketh the reading, 
but especially the preaching of his word, an effec- 
tual means of convincing and converting sinners.' 
6 1 draw them by the cords of love and with the 
bands of a man.' That is the drawing: with the 
bands of a man, not by the attraction of gravity. 
Suppose the planets should stop in their course, 
would God, do you think, attempt to overcome the 
vis intertice of matter by the 4 reading, and especially 
the preaching of his w T ord?' Would he send the ten 
commandments to start them? or would he ' draw 
them with cords of love and the bands of a man,' to 
move onward in their orbits? Yet the Confession, 
and the Catechism, and the Bible, all as certainly 
teach that the impediment to be overcome is over- 
come by moral means: by the truth, by the word of 
God, by the reading, and especially the preaching of 
his word, made effectual by the Holy Spirit. It can- 
not, therefore, be any natural inability; any such ina- 
bility as renders believing a natural impossibility, 
which is removed in regeneration. But it is said, ' the 
carnal mind is enmity against God,' and that this is 
an involuntary condition of mind. But is it a natural 
impossibility for any enemy to be reconciled to him? 
The text does not say that fallen man cannot be re- 
conciled to God; but it says that the carnal mind can- 
not be subject to the law: 6 It is not subject to the 
law of God, neither indeed can be.' Carnality can 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



93 



The Bible expressly teaches man's ability to obey the gospel. 

never be so modified as to become obedience. Again, 
the 6 natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit 
of God, neither can he know them, because they are 
spiritually discerned. Does this mean that an un- 
converted man can have no just intellectual concep- 
tions of the gospel, of truth, and duty, in order to 
his obeying it? How then can he be any more to 
blame than the heathen, who have never heard of 
Christ? And what better condition are men in, with 
the Bible, which they cannot understand, than the 
heathen are with no Bible at all? But if by receiving 
and knowing be meant, a willing reception and an 
experimental knowledge, which is a common use of 
the terms, then the text teaches simply, that until the 
heart is changed, there can be no experimental reli- 
gion in the soul; that a holy heart is indispensable, 
not to intellectual perception, but to spiritual dis- 
cernment, to christian experience. 

5. The Bible not only does not teach the natural 
inability of man to obey the gospel, but it teaches 
directly the contrary. The moral law itself bounds 
the requisition of love by the strength of the sub- 
ject. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God — with 
what? — with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, 
and with all thy mind; — and with what else? — 
with all thy strength. But if heart, and soul, and 
mind, and strength, constitute no strength — how 
is he bound by such a command as this? In the 
same manner, constitutional powers, bearing such a 
relation to obedience as constitutes obligation, are 
recognized in the Bible. See Isaiah v. 1, 2, 3,4. 

9 



04 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Parables of the vineyard, and the talents. 

Was there nothing in the soil and culture of this vine- 
yard which rendered fruit, in respect to the soil, a 
natural possibility? But the vineyard was the house 
of Israel, the owner was God, and the fruit demanded 
was evangelical obedience: and God, the owner, de- 
cided that what he had done, rendered obedience prac- 
ticable, and punishment just. He calls upon the 
common sense and common justice of the universe 
to judge between him and his vineyard. He asks 
whether he had not done that for his vineyard which 
laid a just foundation for it to bring forth good, in- 
stead of wild grapes, and declares that the bringing 
forth of wild grapes was a thing enormous; and goes 
on to pronounce judgment upon his vineyard. 

So in the parable of the talents. The owner com- 
mitted a certain portion of his money to every man 
according to his several ability. These servants again, 
represent the Jewish nation. The talents represent 
gospel privileges; the improvement to be made be- 
lieving — and the misimprovement sloth and unbe- 
lief. The trust w r as graduated in proportion to the 
ability of each man. There w T as ability therefore, and 
the servant who improved his trust, received a reward. 
But the servant who made excuses, pleaded his nat- 
ural inability: I knew that thou wert a hard master, 
reaping where thou hadst not sown, and gathering 
where thou hadst not strewed; (worse than the task- 
masters of Egypt;) and I was afraid. I dared not 
undertake to do anything with my talent. thought 
the safest way would be to hide it, and run no risk. 
But his Lord said to him — Thou wicked and slothful 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



95 



Ability, the ground and measure of obligation. 

servant, thou knewest that I was a tyrant, demanding 
the improvement of gifts not bestowed. How couldst 
thou suppose, then, that I would not exact the im- 
provement of what was given? Why didst thou not 
put my money to the exchangers? and then I should 
have received my own with usury. Do I demand 
effects without causes? Take him away, thrust him 
into outer darkness: he has libelled his Maker, he has 
slandered his God. 

6. The broad principle is laid down in the Bible, 
that ability is the ground and measure of obligation. 
According to that which a man hath, and not accord- 
ing to that which he hath not; to whom much is given, 
of him shall much be required; but to whom little is 
given, of him shall little be required, is the language 
of the equitable Ruler of the world. But if ability is 
not needful to obligation, why observe this rule? 
why not reverse it? Why not require little of him 
to whom much is given, and much from him to whom 
little is given? Present this principle to any man but 
an idiot, and see what he will say to such a proceed- 
ing. There is not a human being whose sense of 
justice would not revolt from it. And shall man be 
more just than God? Nor is the principle of gradua- 
ting responsibility by ability, a limited rule of the 
divine government, applicable only in particular 
cases; the rule is general - it is universal; it applies to 
every free agent in the universe. 

7. The manner in which all excuses are treated in 
Scripture, which are founded on the plea of inability, 
confirms our exposition. There were impenitent sin- 



96 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



The Bible treats excuses in a manner which confirms the doctrine. 

ners of old, who plead a natural inability of obedience. 
In the time of the prophet Jeremiah, there were those 
who alledged that God's decrees created the unavoid- 
able necessity of sinning. They said they could not 
help it. But God, by his prophet, instead of conced- 
ing the doctrine, repelled it with indignation. 

' Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot pro- 
fit. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and 
swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk 
after other gods whom ye know not; And come and 
stand before me in this house, which is called by my 
name, and say, We are delivered to do all these 
abominations?' Jer. vii. 8, 9, 10. 

Does God approve of men's reasoning, when they 
say, God has decreed it, and God executes his de- 
crees, and a resistless fate moves us on to evil. Far 
from it. In what stronger language could the Lord 
speak to hardened and impudent men, who laid their 
sins at his door? Now the fall itself was some 
how comprehended in God's decrees; and if it be 
true that the fall took away all man's natural ability, 
wherein were those Jews wrong? Their excuse was 
that their sins were produced by the fatality of God's 
decrees. They were delivered to do all these abom- 
inations. Their fathers had eaten sour grapes and 
the children's teeth were set on edge. By the sin of 
Adam they had lost all free agency, and therefore 
they were not to blame; all was just as God would 
have it; an inexorable fate drove them on, and how 
could they resist the Almighty? But if God did 
indeed require spiritual obedience from men who lay 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



97 



A free agent able to choose either way, life or death. 

in a state of natural impotency, how is it that he 
frowned so indignantly, when they pleaded their im- 
potence in bar of judgment? 
Again, in Ezekiel, xxxiii. 10, we have the following 
. language: 

' Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the 
house of Israel, Thus ye speak, saying, If our trans- 
gressions and our sins be on us, and we pine away in 
them, how should we then live? 5 

Now, suppose they had been born blind, and God 
had commanded them to see, and they had replied, 
Our blindness and darkness sits heavily upon us, and 
we pine away in it, and it is impossible for us to see, 
how then can we escape thy displeasure? Would 
God in such a case have answered: 

' I have no pleasure in your blindness, which it is 
impossible for you to remove. As I live, saith the 
Lord God, I have no pleasure in your blindness, there- 
fore open your eyes and see ye? 5 

Does God call men to turn, when a natural impos- 
sibility lies in the way, and punish them forever, for 
not turning? That is not like God. Shall not the 
Judge of all the earth do right? The representations" 
of the Bible attach obligation and accountability to a 
free agent as being able to choose both ways; as hav- 
ing ability to choose life, or to choose death. For 
what is written in Deut. xxx. 11 — 20: 

6 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, 
and death and evil; In that I command thee this day 
to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and 
to keep his commandments and his statutes and his 

9* 



98 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Natural power essential to obedience as well as disobedience. 

judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply, I 
call heaven and earth to record this day against you, 
that I have set before you life and death, blessing and 
cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy 
seed may live: That thou mayest love the Lord thy 
God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that 
thou mayest cleave unto him. 

If it be said that men are free to evil and accounta- 
ble for doing wrong, I answer, if God commanded 
men to sin, that might suffice; but if he commands 
them to stop sinning, and they have no free agency 
to do it, and it is a natural impossibility to stop, how 
does free agency to do what is forbidden create ob- 
ligation to abstain and do what is commanded, when 
they have no power? Besides, could they not sin 
without ability to sin? How then can they obey with- 
out ability to obey? And if they have free agency to 
obey, that is just what I am contending for. For 
they can no more obey without natural power, than 
they can sin without natural power. If man, as a 
free agent, has not natural power to obey, then com- 
mands, and exhortations, and entreaties, and expos- 
tulations might as well be addressed to men without 
the five senses; commanding them on pain of eternal 
death to see, hear, feel, taste, and smell. This argu- 
ment was used by Pelagius and Arminius; and in 
the forms they urged it, was easily answered; they 
brought it forward to prove not only that man is nat- 
urally able to obey God, but to prove that he actually 
does obey the gospel without special grace, that his 
will is under no bias from the fall, and that his moral 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



99 



God, not the author of sin. 

ability is so unperverted, that it is sufficient without 
regeneration, to do all that God has commanded. 
Augustine maintained that the will was entirely 
struck out of balance; Pelagius on the contrary 
maintained, that it remained in delightful equilibrio, 
and consequently that no grace of God was needed 
to determine it to a right choice, insisting that de- 
pendence on grace to change the will was inconsist- 
ent with commands and exhortations, &c. But 
Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and all the reformers fully 
admit the ability of man as a free agent, and deny 
that his moral inability and dependency as a sinner, 
supersede obligation, invitation, and command. The 
natural ability of man is a point which has never been 
controverted by the church at large, and generally only 
by heretics. The orthodox portion of the church of 
God never has questioned it; and denied only moral 
ability, i. e. a right disposition or will, in opposition 
to the Arminian and Pelagian heresies. 

XV. The Scriptures and our Confession both teach, 
that God is not the author of sin — that he neither cre- 
ates it, nor devises plans, nor adapts means, to break 
the force of his own laws and administration, so as 
purposely to prevent obedience and produce sin, as 
the natural and necessary result of his own power 
and agency. You may search the word and works 
of God with a microscope, and you cannot find any 
such thing as a plan tending to prevent obedience 
and to produce sin. You may light up ten thou- 
sand suns and search every cavern and deep recess 
of nature, and you can find no such thing. In 



100 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



The whole tendency of God's government is to prevent sin. 

the development of his character, law, gospel, and 
providence, he has produced powerful means of 
drawing his subjects to obedience, unobstructed by 
any counteracting influences designed to prevent 
obedience and produce sin. He has given no law 
against the moral law, and affords no motives to dis- 
obedience, and administers no providence to defeat 
the administration which corroborates the powers of 
law. All the tendencies of his government, law, gos- 
pel, and providential administration, are self-consist- 
ent and in unison. God tempteth not any man, 
neither can he be tempted of evil. The whole ten- 
dency of his government in the hands of the Media- 
tor is, to lead the ruined rebel to break off his sins by 
repentance, and not to induce him to persist in them. 
God is not the author of sin. It comes against the 
whole moral influence of his glorious character, law, 
gospel, and government. Nor in its existence in 
fallen man, ; is violence offered to the will of the crea- 
tures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second 
causes taken away, but rather established.' 

Of course I reject all theories of the origin or con- 
tinuance of evil, which make God the author of sin. — 
The Gnostic that he placed man in contact with 
sinful matter, to be unavoidably corrupted — -or the 
Manichean, that it is a part of the created substance 
of the soul— or that it is a created instinct of our nature, 
perverting the will by the power of a constitutional 
necessity — or that all agency in creatures is impossible, 
and therefore, that God creates sinful and holy exer- 
cises, by a direct efficiency in such quantities and pro- 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



101 



Man capable of choice, with power of contrary election. 

portions as please him. I hold, with the Confession, 
the doctrine of free agency, before and since the fall, 
sufficient, while upheld, to make holiness obligatory, 
and account for sin without supposing God to be its 
author, in a way which would make him contradict 
himself, and oppose his own laws and government, 
and do violence to the wiil of the creatures, and de- 
stroy the liberty of choice, determining it to evil by 
an absolute necessity of nature. To the system of 
free agency, then, which teaches that to fallen man 
' no ability of any kind 5 exists to obey the gospel, or 
is required to constitute a perfect obligation to do so, 
and a just desert of eternal punishment for not obey- 
ing; I oppose the testimony of the whole orthodox 
church, and that of the Bible. 

XVI. Finally. The Confession of Faith teaches 
plainly and unanswerably, the free agency and natu- 
ral ability of man, as capable of choice, with the 
power of contrary election. 

In confirmation of this position, I refer to the Con- 
fession, chap. ix. sec. 1. 

; God hath endued the will of man with that natural 
liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute 
necessity of nature, determined, to good or evil.' 

Now if this declaration has respect to man, as a 
race, if the term man, as here employed, is generic, 
including Adam and all his posterity, then the pas- 
sage quoted settles the question. The whole turns 
on — what is the meaning of the word man ? Because, 
if it means man ^fallen, if it means Adam's poster- 
ity, my opponent is gone — the ground is swept 



102 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



The term 'man' used in a generic sense. 

from under him. He must prove that man means 
Adam, and Adam only, and Adam before the fall, or 
else the Confession is against him. Now, what is 
the subject of the chapter to which this section 
belongs? It respects free will; i. e. free will in the 
theological sense of that phrase, as the doctrine was 
discussed between Augustine and Pelagius, a consid- 
erable time since the fall, and has respect to man in 
the generic sense. That this is so, is plain, from the 
scriptural references, quoted in support of the posi- 
tions taken. If the declarations of the chapter had 
respect solely to Adam, the scriptural references 
would be to Adam; but these references, do not 
refer to him, but do refer to his fallen posterity. 
They drive the nail, and clinch it. See what they 
are: 

'But every man is tempted, when he is drawn 
away of his own lust, and enticed.' James i. 14. 

' I call heaven and earth to record this day against 
you, that I have set before you life and death, bles- 
sing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou 
and thy seed may live.' Deut. xxx. 19. 

These are the scriptural proofs, selected and ad- 
duced by the Assembly of Divines, as exhibiting the 
scripture authority on which the declarations in the 
chapter are made: and what are they? Listen to 
them: 

6 Godjiath endued the will of man with that natu- 
ral liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by any 
absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or 
evil.' Confess, of Faith, ix. 1. 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



103 



Man in a state of innocency had power to do good or evil. 

If this means Adam, all I say is, that they use very 
bad grammar, and have made a most wonderful mis- 
take in the references quoted. To say that the will 
of Adam before the fall, is neither forced nor deter- 
mined by necessity, is nonsense, and makes the 
second section tautology. 

The first, if it refers to Adam in innocency, says 
he had natural liberty of will, and was not forced 
or determined by necessity to choose good or evil; 
and the second section repeats the same thing; that 
man in his state of innocency had freedom and power 
to do good or evil. 

I take the question as settled then, that 6 man' here 
means man as a race, and that ; will' here means the 
will of man as a race; and it is what I hold, and 
what all the church hold; and it is the fair meaning of 
the Confession. What follows in the next section, 
with respect to man in a state of innocency, is a 
confirmation and an illustration of the doctrine as 
thus explained. 

; Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and 
power to will and to do that which is good and well 
pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might 
fall from it:' (Confess, of Faith, ix. 2.) i. e. his free 
agency included the natural power of choosing right 
or of choosing wrong. 

Adam had the natural ability to stand, and he had 
it in a state of balanced power, in which he ^Cvas ca- 
pable of choosing, and liable to choose either way. 

Then comes section the third, which contains a 
description of the change induced by the fall, a 



104 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



The fall changed the will, not the constitutional powers. 

change which respected the will of man, not his con- 
stitutional powers; a change in the voluntary use of 
his will. 

' Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly 
lost'— 

Lost! what? The natural liberty of his will, so 
that it is now forced and determined by an abso- 
lute necessity to good or evil? Not a word of it. It 
was not that; it was something else he lost: and 
thereupon turns the question between us. The Con- 
fession says: 

' Lost all ability of will to any spiritual good 
accompanying salvation; so, as a natural man, being 
altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is 
not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or 
to prepare himself thereunto.' 

He lost ' all ability of will.' Does this mean that, 
in respect to the power of choice, his will fell into a 
state of natural inability? Not at all. He had the 
power of choice as much as ever. But he had lost 
all moral ability, that is, inclination to choose what 
was good. His will was altogether averse from it. 
He was altogether unwilling. He fell into an ina- 
bility of will, i. e. into a state of obstinate unwilling- 
ness. This is the common use of terms until this day. 
Moral inability means not impossibility, but it means 
unwillingness. Man became ; dead.' But how? Not 
by the'annihilation of his natural powers, not dead in 
respect to the natural liberty of his will, but dead in sin; 
so as not to be able, by his own strength (of will) to con- 
vert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.' I say 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



105 



The words, 'able' and 'strength,' employed in a moral sense only. 

' Amen! — this is my doctrine. The word 6 able, 5 and 
the word ' strength, 5 are both employed in a moral 
sense, and in a moral sense only; and thus interpre- 
ted, the Confession is perfectly consistent with itself. 

The fourth section of this chapter is a corrobora- 
tion of the same position: 

6 When God converts the sinner, and translates him 
into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natu- 
ral bondage under sin, and by his grace alone, enables 
him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually 
good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining cor- 
ruption, he doth not perfectly nor only v/ill that 
>vhich is good, but doth also will that which is evil.' 

Frees him from what? From his free agency? 
from the constitutional powers of his being? No. 
Frees him from his bondage under sin, i. e. from his 
bias to evil, from his moral inability. And how is he 
freed? The Confession says it is by grace. Won- 
derful grace it would be, to restore his natural powers! 
One would think this was more like justice than grace. 
But it is argued, that if this bondage means mere 
obstinacy of will, man would not need divine aid. 
Indeed, so far is this from being true, that no crea- 
ture does need divine aid so much as a free agent 
obstinately bent upon evil. My children were free 
agents, but they needed aid, to secure the perform- 
ance of such duties as they were naturally able, but as 
fallen creatures disinclined to perform. None possess 
such a power of resistance, as a free agent under moral 
inability or aversion to good. It is a bias which he 
himself never will take away. God must deliver him ; 
10 



106 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Confession of Faith on the decrees of God. 

and every thing short of divine aid, is short of his ne- 
cessity. Men are sometimes fully sensible of this. I 
have heard of a man, under the power of the habit of 
intemperance, who cried out to his friends, Help 
me! help me! wake me up! save me, or I fall! The 
love of liquor had not destroyed his natural ability. 
But he felt that his moral ability — his ability of will 
to resist temptation — was gone. The distinction is 
plain and easy; and it is-one that we can all under- 
stand in the every day affairs of life. If we see 
our friends in danger of being overcome by evil habit, 
we brace them against its power; we perceive their 
moral inability, and we bring them all the aid in our 
power. The phrase, ' to incline and enable,' is just 
as consistent with a moral inability as it is with a 
natural. Our natural bondage is that into which we 
are born by nature. Our constitutional bias to evil 
is called original sin. And it is grace, and grace 
alone, that enables a man to resist and overcome it. 
This I believe; this I hold; this I have felt. We shall 
be inclined to good alone, only when we reach the 
state of glory. 

This reasoning is corroborated by the doctrine of 
the Confession, in respect to God's decrees. 

4 God from all eternity did, by the most wise and 
holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchange- 
ably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as 
thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is vio- 
lence offered to the will of the creature, nor is the 
liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, 
but rather established/ 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



107 



No violence done to the will by the decrees of God. 

Here are two points of doctrine laid down. First, 
that by the decrees of God no violence is done to 
the will of the creature: its natural liberty is not 
invaded or destroyed. It is not in God's decree that 
it should be forced or divested of its natural power, 
but the contrary. 

There is nothing in God's whole plan that amounts 
to the destruction of the natural liberty of the will. 
Now if I can show that on the contrary, his decrees 
confirm it, why then, I carry my exposition. But 
what says the chapter? 

6 God from all eternity, did freely and unchangeably 
ordain whatsoever comes to pass.' 

That God did ordain the fall, and all its connec- 
tions and consequences, cannot then be denied. But 
how were these ordained? The Confession tells us 
how: 

It was, ' so that no violence is offered to the will 
of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of 
second causes taken away, but rather established.' 

Here it is disclosed that the natural liberty of the 
will is not destroyed by the fall, but rather established; 
instead of taking away free agency, and the capacity 
of choice, God decreed to establish it. Whatever has 
been the wreck and ruin produced by the fall, the 
free agency originally conferred upon man, has not 
been knocked away. Therefore it was, that I pressed 
this book to my heart, because it assures me, that the 
righteous Governor of the world, has done no vio- 
lence to these powers and faculties of man, on which 
his government rests. 



108 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Decrees — Contingency — Dr. Twiss. 

But I am happy on this subject, in being able to 
adduce an authority altogether above my own. What 
did the Assembly of Divines mean by this word con- 
tingency? The celebrated Dr. Twiss, who was their 
prolocutor or moderator, must be high authority on 
that question. He says: 

; Whereas we see some things come to pass neces- 
sarily, some contingently, so God hath ordained that 
all things si tall come to pass: but necessary things 
necessarily, and contingent things contingently, that 
is, avoidably and with a possibility of not coming to 
pass. For every university scholar knows this to be 
the notion of contingency.' — Chr. Spec. vol. vii. No. 
1. p. 165. 

Dr. Twiss is speaking of natural and moral events, 
the only events w T hich exist in the universe; and he 
says that God decreed that all things should come to 
pass; that natural events should come to pass neces- 
sarily; and that moral events, which are acts of will, 
and w r hich he calls 6 contingent things,' shall come to 
pass contingently; which he explains to mean avoid- 
ably and with a natural possibility of not coming to 
pass. He is speaking of the moral world, and he 
says that in the natural world all is necessary as 
opposed to choice; but that in the moral world all is 
free, as opposed to coercion, or natural necessity, or 
inability of choice; and that every act of will, though 
certain in respect to the decree, is yet free and unco- 
erced in respect to the manner of its coming to pass, 
and as to any natural necessity, always avoidable— 
not avoided, but according to the very nature of free 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



109 



How God executes his decrees — Con. of Faith— Shorter Catechism. 

agency, always avoidable, in accordance with the 
language of the Confession, ch. ix. sec. 1. [quoted 
above.] 

Now we shall show how God executes his decrees; 
and what says the Confession on this point? (See 
ch. v. sec. 2:) 

' Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and 
decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass 
immutably and infallibly; yet, by the same provi- 
dence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the 
nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or 
contingently:' i. e. the volitions of the mind come to 
pass freely, and as opposed to any natural necessity, 
avoidably. 

The account given of the actual effects of the fall, 
is a still further confirmation of our exposition; ch. 
vi. sec. 2: 

4 By this sin, they fell from their original righteous- 
ness, and communion with God, and so became dead 
in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and 
parts of soul and body. 5 

Also Shorter Catechism, Ques. and Ans. 17, 18: 

Q. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind? 

A. The fall brought mankind into a state of sin 
and misery? 

Q. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate 
whereinto man fell ? 

A. The sinfulness of that estate w T hereinto man 
fell, consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want 
of original righteousness, and the corruption of his 
whole nature, which is commonly called Original Sin; 
10* 



no 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Natural powers perverted by the fall, not destroyed. 

together with all actual transgressions which proceed 
from it. 

If man lost the natural power of right choice, this 
answer should have been changed, and we ought to 
have been told, that the fall brought mankind into a 
state of natural impotency. But it says no such 
thing. It says it brought him into a state of sin. 
What! Can a man sin without being a free agent? 
The effects here stated are, the loss of holiness and 
the corruption of his nature. But surely the cor- 
ruption of nature is not the annihilation of nature; 
his nature must still exist in order to be corrupt. 
What then is its corruption? It is deatin sin, not 
the death of its natural powers. There is no de- 
struction of the agents. But there is a perversion 
of those powers which do constitute their agency. 
So much for the testimony of the Confession of 
Faith. 

I said that in expounding a written instrument we 
are always to consider the attributes of the subject 
concerning which it speaks; that its language is to be 
expounded, in reference to the nature of the thing. 
The Confession teaches that man was endowed with 
a natural liberty of choice, and has suffered no per- 
version but that which consists in a wrong exercise 
of his will. Its natural liberty remains, but in regard 
to moral liberty, i. e. an unbiased will, the balance is 
struck wrong. 

Such are my views of the natural ability of fallen 
man, and my evidence that they are just. 

It is the ability of an intelligent, accountable agent 



NATURAL ABILITY. 



Ill 



Fatality the only alternative of natural inability. 

for the exercise of his own powers under law, and in 
the view of motives, and with a sense of obligation 
and just liability to reward and punishment. Nothing 
short of this'distinguishes man from animals, or dust and 
ashes. If some such power be not real, no difference 
can be pointed out between free agency and fatality, 
and no reason assigned why God should govern man 
by moral laws, and hold him accountable rather than 
any other of the products of his power and natural 
government. I say, therefore, with Tertullian — 

4 A law would not have been imposed on a person 
who had not in his power the obedience due to the law; 
nor again would transgression have been threatened 
with death, if the contempt also of the law were not 
placed to the account of marts free will. 

6 He who should be found to be good or bad by 
necessity, and not voluntarily, could not with justice 
receive the retribution either of good or evil.' p. 64. 



MORAL INABILITY. 



I now proceed to explain the doctrine of Man's 
Moral Inability, as understood in every age by the 
orthodox church, and as taught in the Confession of 
Faith and the Bible, and as I hold and teach it. 

I am aware that the doctrine of a moral inability, 
as distinguished from natural impossibility, is regarded 
by some as a fiction of the imagination, or a mere 
metaphysical subtility, of no practical utility; while 
all its tendencies are powerfully to the territories of 
dangerous error. But when the nature and evidence 
of moral inability shall have been stated, it will ap- 
pear, as I hope, to such persons, that they have not, as 
Edwards says, 'well considered the matter;' and that 
there is a distinction between natural impossibility 
and a moral inability, palpable and salutary, without 
denying the dependence of man for effectual calling 
on the special influence of the Holy Ghost, or imply- 
ing the doctrine of self-regeneration and salvation 
without an atonement by the deeds of the law. 

By natural inability I understand, that which an 
agent, though ever so willing, cannot do from defect 
of capacity; and by moral inability, that which his 
capacity as an agent renders possible and makes 
obligatory, and which is prevented only by his own 



114 



MORAL INABILITY. 



The bias of the will to evil never overcome by natural ability. 

uncoerced choice, including in the term not only 
single consecutive volition, but that general and 
abiding decision of the mind for God or against him 
— which constitutes holy or unholy character, and 
includes, what Edwards denominates, 'the will and 
affections of the soul,- and Turretin, ' a habit of cor- 
rupt will. 5 

This voluntary hindrance of spiritual obedience is 
called inability, in accordance, as I shall show, with 
the uniform use of speech in all the languages of men, 
applying the terms cannot, unable, &c. to whatever 
is prevented by the slightest disinclination, up to the 
most terrible obstinacy of will. In reference to spir- 
itual obedience, it is called inability, also, I have no 
doubt, from the great and universal difficulty expe- 
perienced by man in changing from a wrong to a 
right decision of mind in respect to God and duty, as 
well as from the absolute certainty that without the 
Holy Ghost, the obstinacy of the human will, will 
produce its deadly results with a certainty equal to 
the connexion between natural causes and their ef- 
fect, though not in the same manner, or with the 
same results as to accountability and desert of punish- 
ment. It is called in the Creeds of the Reformation, 
and in our own Confession, inability of will — because 
spiritual obedience is prevented only by the perverse 
action of the will; and to indicate that free agency 
and natural ability never avail in fallen man, to over- 
come the bias of his will to evil, under the combined 
influence of original and actual sin; that with the 
ability to choose right, resulting from free agency and 



MORAL INABILITY. 



115 



Moral inability of man distinct from natural ability. 

creating obligation, he actually chooses wrong, and 
only wrong, until renewed by the Holy Ghost. 

It is called a moral inability also in the language of 
Turretin. 

1. 'Objectively, because it has respect to moral 
duties, 2. As to its origin, because it is brought on 
one's self; which arises from voluntary corruption, 
voluntarily acquired by the sin of man. 3. As to its 

CHARACTER, (FORMALITER,) BECAUSE THAT IS VOLUNTARY 
AND CULPABLE WHICH IS FOUNDED IN A HABIT OF CORRUPT 
WILL.' 

By all this I understand Turretin to mean, that the 
moral inability of man is a reality — is distinct from 
a natural impossibility, and is called moral, because 
it respects the aversion of mind to the performance 
of spiritual duties, brought upon the race, by the vol- 
untary transgression of Adam, and eventuating in a 
habit of corrupt will. To all of which I subscribe. 

It is in this sense that the term moral inability is 
used by Edwards — 4 We are said to be naturally una- 
ble to do a thing which we cannot do if we will, be- 
cause what is commonly called nature, does not allow 
of it. 

4 Moral inability is the want of inclination, or, a 
contrary inclination.' 

This impotency of will to good, according to the 
Bible and our Confession, and the received doctrines 
of the church — includes the constitutional bias to 
actual sin, produced in all men by the fall, anterior 
to intelligent, voluntary action, which, though it 
destroys not that natural liberty with which God 



116 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Native bias to sin never changed but by the Holy Spirit. 

hath endowed the will, nor forces, nor determines 
it by any necessity of nature to the choice of evil 
instead of good — does, nevertheless evince, that 
mankind are, as Edwards says — 'under the influ- 
ence of a prevailing, effectual tendency to that sin 
and wickedness, which imply their utter and eternal 
ruin.' 

To this bias isadded in fallen adult man, that ter- 
riffic decision of the mind in favor of the world and 
against God, which never changes, but under the 
special influence of the Spirit in our effectual calling. 

To which may be added, the formidable, accumu- 
lating influence of habit, which, though it forces not 
the will, or determines its perverse obstinacy by any 
necessity of nature, does yet in accordance with the 
known laws of perverted mind, powerfully corrobo- 
rate the perverting influences of both original and 
actual sin, by impairing the moral sensibilities of the 
soul, and the power of motive to good, while it fear- 
fully augments the temptations to evil, and facilitates 
the liability, and diminishes the resistance to a com- 
pliance. 

This is the view of the subject which is recognized 
in our Confession, and taught in the Bible, and held 
forth in the creeds and standard orthodox works of 
every age, as the received doctrine of the church. 

In my preaching, I have not been accustomed to 
employ the terms natural and moral inability, because 
they are the technical terms of theological controver- 
sy, around which prejudice has gathered odium and 
mistake. But in the present case I have no other 



MORAL INABILITY. 



117 



Love of sin, no evidence of its natural and unavoidable necessity. 

alternative, because it is on these technical terms that 
the whole controversy turns. 

I say, then, that our Confession, while it teaches 
unanswerably the free agency and natural ability of 
man to choose right as well as wrong, teaches with 
equal clearness his moral inability as consisting in a 
settled aversion of will to all spiritual obedience, until 
called efficaciously by the word and Spirit of God. 

1. There is no necessity for interpreting the terms 
of the Confession, as applied to fallen man, to mean 
the natural impossibility of obedience. 

The various phrases expressing inability, are by 
common use in all languages applied to express 
whatever is prevented voluntarily, either by slight 
disinclination, or the most powerful, immutable de- 
cision of the mind. We use the terms cannot, unable, 
&c. continually to express whatever for the slightest 
reasons we do not find it convenient or feel inclined 
to do, and where no natural impossibility exists or is 
thought of. As there is, therefore, no necessity to 
interpret the terms inability, and unable, as applied 
to fallen man, as teaching the natural impossibility of 
obedience — so also from the established use of the 
terms in all languages, there is no authority fordoing it. 

The decision and permanence of sinful preference, 
affords no evidence of its natural and unavoidable 
necessity. 

Edwards has shown that certainty and uniformity 
of right or wrong action does not decide the manner 
of it as being voluntary or coerced. 

He shows, in accordance with our Confession, that 
11 



118 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Moral impotency not inconsistent with other doctrines of the Bible. 

God is free in his decrees and their execution, as 
opposed to the coercion of fate; and that Christ, though 
his character and life were foretold andcertain, and he 
went as it was written of him, acted nevertheless with 
entire and uncoerced voluntariness. On the same prin- 
ciple Nebuchadnezzar and Judas, and sinners given up 
of God, though their conduct may be certain as a mat- 
ter of fact, is not certain by a coerced necessity, but 
in the highest sense free and accountable, and such 
throughout are the implications of the Confession and 
the Bible. Because the moral inability of man there- 
fore, is as immutable to all motive and human effort, 
as the effects of natural causes, it does not follow 
that it is made certain and immutable by a natural 
necessity. 

The doctrine of the moral impotency of man is not 
inconsistent with any other of the doctrines of the 
Bible. 

It is not inconsistent with the doctrine of our entire 
and absolute dependence for regeneration on the 
special influence of the Holy Spirit; for, while it 
includes a natural ability of obedience, as the ground 
of obligation, it teaches the certainty of its obstinate 
perversion, creating in point of fact a necessity of the 
Holy Ghost to renew, as real and as great as if the 
impediment were a natural impossibility. It no more 
implies self regeneration, than if the work of the Spirit 
in subduing the will, consisted in creating new 
faculties; the influence of the Spirit to make man 
willing being just as indispensable to his salvation, as 
if it were indispensable to make him naturally able. 



MORAL INABILITY. 



119 



Difficulty of choosing right, arising from moral impotency. 

Nor does that ability to obey, whose exercise is pre- 
vented by choice, imply that it is an easy matter for 
man to repent and turn to God, in and of himself; 
for every thing which is possible as a matter of duty 
is not therefore easy. I agree therefore with Turre- 
tin ; that man, laboring under such an inability, 
is falsely said to be able, if he wishes,' — implying that 
a sinner's wishes may change a heart fully set on 
evil. ' For though the phrase may to some extent 
be tolerated, understood concerning the natural pow- 
er of willing, which, in whatever condition we may 
be, is never taken away from us; yet it cannot be 
admitted when we speak of the moral disposition of 
the will to good, not only to willing but to willing 
rightly.' For, though in respect to the possibility 
and corresponding obligation there can be no excuse; 
nevertheless in respect to the difficulty, nothing 
which the mind can lawfully be commanded to do, 
can be more difficult. It is difficult to resist the ori- 
ginal bias of the mind to actual sin; difficult to relin- 
quish the chief good located on earth, and set our 
affections on things above; and difficult to reverse 
the long accumulating tendency of the habitual in- 
dulgence of our evil way. The Bible, therefore, 
represents it though a reasonable, yet a difficult thing 
for a lost sinner to save himself; so difficult that none 
do it, and that God, in doing it, makes glorious dis- 
plays both of power and grace; and every sinner and 
every saint, in working out his salvation, finds the 
scriptural representation true. The inattentive find 
it difficult to resolve upon immediate attention; and 



120 



MORAL INABILITY. 



The Confession teaches an inability other than a natural one. 

difficult to fix their attention when they have done 
it. The stupid find it difficult to awaken themselves 
to feel and realize anything: and the awakened find it 
difficult to see and feel their sins, and the great evil of 
sin; and when convinced of sin, difficult to repent 
and come to Christ. And when the sinner is con- 
verted, it is so difficult to maintain a spiritual frame 
and holy resolutions, and watchfulness, and prayer, 
and perseverance, that, for all that is past, and all 
that is to come, he says, by the grace of God, I am 
what I am. 

The terms of the Confession preclude the inter- 
pretation of a natural impossibility, as their only 
meaning, and cannot be so interpreted, without 
making the Confession contradict itself. 

According to a well established rule of interpreta- 
tion, no instrument is to be so explained as to make it 
contradict itself, without necessity, and when it is 
just as easy to harmonize all its parts, by adopting 
a different interpretation. Now if I have not proved 
that the Confession, as I interpret it, is sustained 
by other collateral arguments in addition to that 
which I have drawn from the Bible, then I shall 
despair of ever successfully expounding a document 
in the world. I never have seen so much light 
thrown on any one point of exposition before. Does 
not the Confession speak of inability other than a 
natural one? Does it not teach expressly ' the natu- 
ral liberty of the will' in fallen man to choose good 
or evil, uncoerced by fate or necessity? And after all 
is it a natural liberty that means nothing, and can do 



MORAL INABILITY. 



121 



Original corruption implies active aversion, not fatal necessity. 

nothing? Does 'inability of will' mean a natural im- 
possibility of exercising that ' natural liberty of the 
will' in the choice of good ; and that it is coerced by 
a natural necessity to the preference of evil? Does 
the Confession contradict itself? We are not at 
liberty, then, to make it in one set of terms deny an 
ability, which it has asserted in another. And when it 
declares in appropriate phraseology the natural liberty 
of the will, it cannot mean to contradict in its account 
of moral impotency what it had before asserted with 
respect to its ability to choose, as opposed to fate. 
I may be able in one sense, and unable in another. 
The Confession, in fact, interprets itself. (And this, I 
suppose, is what Dr. Wilson means, when he says, 
we must receive the language of the Confession with- 
out any explanation.) I agree with him, that on 
many points it needs no explanation. It guards 
against its own perversion, and its language is such as 
I should think it almost impossible to misunderstand. 

Let us see what is the language which it holds in 
chap. 6, sec. 4. 

'From this original corruption, whereby we are 
utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all 
good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all 
actual transgressions.' 

Here is active aversion, not fatal necessity. The 
man is indisposed, he is disabled by being indisposed. 
But it has been said, that if a man needs help, it must 
be a natural inability under which he lies. This I 
deny. A man who lies under a moral inability needs 
aid as really as if were naturally unable; and the aid he 

11* 



122 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Loss of liberty of will does not mean loss of free agency. 

needs is such as God alone can bring him. What 
Christian does not pray that God would help him? 
But does he mean that he has no strength of any 
sort? Not at all. He is afraid to trust his own heart. 
He prays for moral aid, for moral ability, for strength 
of purpose. Surely we are all agreed in this. We 
believe alike — for we pray alike. New School and Old 
School all confess, when they get before God, their 
impotency of will to good, and pray for help to will and 
to do. I have put off my coat, how shall I put it on? 
We feel this impotency; and what we feel, God sees; 
and that which he sees he has testified. ■ 
Chapter ix. on Free Will. 

' Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly 
lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompa- 
nying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether 
averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, 
by his own strength, to convert himself, or to pre- 
pare himself thereunto.' 

When it says that man has lost all ability of will, 
it does not mean that he has lost all free agency. It 
does not mean, that he is not able, as a free agent, 
and bound to do that which is right, but that he has 
lost all will to do it. My soul! do I not believe this? 
Did I not feel it when God convinced me of sin? Full 
well did I feel it. Did I not fall at the footstool and 
tell the Lord that I was gone, that I was ruined and 
helpless, and never should come back to him, unless 
he put forth his hand to deliver me? If I ever preached 
any truth to dying men, with all my heart and with 
all my soul, it is the truth of man's total depravity 



MORAL INABILITY. 



123 



Man remains utterly averse to all good until God quickens him. 

and inability; that his condition is desperate, and 
never will he turn and live, unless God shall look 
down from heaven and have mercy upon him. This 
is my doctrine; and it it is the doctrine of the Con- 
fession, which says, we are averse from all good. 
This language suits me. There is no catch in this, 
no quibble; I mean what I say; I fully and heartily 
believe that man is utterly averse to all good; that 
he is dead; dead in law and dead in sin — under the 
curse of God, and so will ever remain, until God 
quickens him by his Spirit and grace. 

But let us see what the Confession says in sec. 4, 
chap. 9. 

' When God converts a sinner, and translates him 
into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural 
bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables 
him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually 
good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining cor- 
ruption, he doth not perfectly nor only will that 
which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.' 

'Enable' here does not imply that there is any 
natural inability. It means, inclines him to will. 
The Confession is orthodox; it says that no mere 
man is able, without divine aid, to keep God's com- 
mandments. That is my faith. I admit, however, 
that this was the spot at which I once stumbled, 
when, as I said, I w r as unable fully to embrace the 
Confession of Faith. I saw a difficulty here. I be- 
lieved the Confession to mean just as Dr. Wilson 
now insists that it does mean; and in that sense I 
never could receive it. But on reflection, and with 



124 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Effectual calling — divine illumination. 

those collateral lights which I have mentioned, I 
now understand it to speak the very truth, and I 
embrace it accordingly. I believe in the moral ina- 
bility which it here declares; and I believe that 
moral inability to obey the law perfectly, will con- 
tinue until the christian reaches his home in heaven. 

But now let us hear what the Confession says upon 
effectual calling. I quote from chap. x. sec. 1. 

4 All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, 
and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and 
accepted time, effectually to call by his word and 
Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which 
they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus 
Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and sav- 
ingly to understand the things of God; taking away 
their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of 
flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power 
determining them to that which is good; and effectu- 
ally drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so as they 
come most freely, being made willing by his grace.' 

This enlightening I hold to be a divine illumination, 
and such as the Spirit of God alone can give. The 
phrase 'heart of stone,' which is employed in one of 
the texts cited as proof, is a metaphor; and so is the 
' heart of flesh;' and this I believe is the only passage 
in the whole Bible where the term 'flesh' is employed 
to signify anything good. A heart of flesh manifestly 
means tenderness, susceptibility — in other words, a 
willing heart. Renewing the ' will,' that is, turning 
the will into a new direction. It is God who turns it. 
The sinner left to himself never will turn. But in 



MORAL INABILITY. 



125 



Regeneration the most stupendous work of Almighty power. 

conversion God does not make a free agent. He turns 
a free agent. I am perfectly aware that some very- 
good men suppose and assert, that the men of the 
new school (though that, by the by, is one of the 
most undefined of all designations; the term is like 
fog, it has no substance and no definite limits, but 
floats about in a sort of palpable obscure) hold to self- 
regeneration; and that the influence of the Holy 
Spirit is not necessary in turning a sinner from dark- 
ness to light. No man ever heard me teach such a 
doctrine. I have taught directly the reverse, and 
have put the doctrine of man's absolute dependence 
into as strong terms as I knew how to employ. If 
there are any stronger, I shall be glad to get hold of 
them. All who are in the habit of hearing me, know 
perfectly that the total depravity of man and his de- 
pendence on the power and help of the Spirit of God 
has been the great end of all my preaching ; and as I well 
know has been, under God, the power of my preaching. 
I think, and always have thought, that the display of 
divine Omnipotence in converting rebel minds is 
greater by far than any exhibition of it, which ever 
has been made in the material world. And for an 
obvious reason; because mind has more power of re- 
sistance than matter. Some men seem to think, that 
if God does a thing by instrumentality, no opportuni- 
ty is left for God to show his own great power. I 
think far otherwise. To me the truth seems weak 
enough in itself to leave ample space for the display 
of Omnipotence in making it effectual. I think that 
the act of God in regeneration, is the most stupendous 



126 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Moral inability taught by the fathers — Clement — Origen. 

manifestation of omnipotent energy that has ever been 
made by the Almighty. Nor do I ever expect to see 
anything in God's works that will rival the solemn 
majesty of that greatest of all his operations, which, 
silent as the spheres, moves on in its resistless strength, 
making the hearts of rebels yield before it. 

The next point in the confirmation of my exposi- 
tion of the doctrine of the Confession, touching the 
moral impotency of man, is to show, that what it af- 
firms on that subject, has been the doctrine of the 
church of God in all ages. And I shall now attempt 
to show that the fathers, while they held free will, in 
opposition to necessity and blind fate, nevertheless 
taught the moral inability of man, and his dependence 
on the Holy Spirit, just as I teach it. The first au- 
thority I shall produce on this point is that of Clement 
of Alexandria. 

'Since some men are without faith and others con- 
tentious, all do not obtain the perfection of good. 
Nor is it possible to obtain it without our own exer- 
tion. The whole, however, does not depend upon 
our own will; for instance — our future destiny; for 
we are saved by grace, not indeed without good 
works.' — Scotfs Tomline, vol. 2, p. 56. 

Clement teaches in this passage man's natural 
ability and his moral inability with equal clearness. 

Origen. — ' The virtue of a rational creature is 
mixed, arising from his own free will, and the divine 
power conspiring with him who chooses that which 
is good. But there is need of our own free will, and 
of divine cooperation which does not depend upon 



MORAL INABILITY. 



127 



Moral inability — Gregory Nazianzen — Jerome. 

our will, not only to become good and virtuous, but 
also after we become so, that we may persevere in 
virtue, 5 p. 82. 

I quoted him before, and showed that he was 
strong on the doctrine of free will, as opposed to fate. 
What I have now quoted may be considered as a 
good commentary upon the text: — It is God that 
worketh in you both to will and to do of his good 
pleasure. 

Gregory Nazianzen. — ' A right will stands in need 
of assistance from God; or rather the very desire of 
what is right is something divine, and the gift of the 
mercy of God. For we have need both of power 
over ourselves and of salvation from God. Therefore, 
says he, it is not of him that willeth, that is, not of 
him only that willeth, nor of him only that runneth, 
but of God that showeth. Since the will itself is 
from God, he with reason attributes every thing to 
God. However much you run, however much you 
contend, you stand in need of him who gives the 
crown.' 

Gregory says that God is the author of faith — that 
he is the beginning of good in the soul; yet he is 
equally explicit on the doctrine of free will as oppos- 
ed to fatalism. He holds that man has need of all 
that free agency can do, and all that grace performs 
beside. 

Jerome. — ; For the freedom of the will is so to be 
reserved, that the grace of the Giver may excel in all 
things, according to the saying of the prophet, except 
the Lord build the house, their labor is but lost that 



128 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Moral inability — Theodoret. 

tuild it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman 
waketh but in vain. It is not of him that willeth, 
nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth 
mercy. 5 p. 146. 

He declares, then, that though man is a free agent, 
yet regeneration is not the effect of his agency, but 
of God's free grace: as the preservation of a city is 
not the result of the watchman's care, but of God's 
unsleeping providence. Unless the Lord keep the 
city, the watchman waketh but in vain. 

Theodoret. — ' Neither the grace of the Spirit is suf- 
ficient for those who have unwillingness; nor, on the 
other hand, can willingness, without this grace, col- 
lect the riches of virtue.' p. 290. 

Here we see that while the grace of the Spirit does 
not supersede the necessity of earnest attention and 
striving on the part of man, yet that no strivings of 
man will ever issue in a saving result, without 
Almighty grace. And grace is not to be expected 
while a man wilfully indulges in sloth and sleep, and 
puts forth no effort for his own deliverance. 

But, before adducing quotations further, I would 
remark: 

1. That every one of these confessions recognizes 
the liberty of the will, as free from coercion. 

2. They all uniformly ascribe its perverse action 
to the effect of the fall, in biasing, yet not in coercing 
the will. 

3. They all teach expressly that the bondage is 
the influence of this evil bias, and not a natural 
necessity of sinning; and taken together, they make 



MORAL INABILITY. 



129 



Harmony of the Protestant Confessions. Early reformers. 

out a clear and consistent account of the natural 
ability of man, as a free agent and of his moral 
inability as a sinner, by reason of the bias of his will, 
as occasioned by the fall. If you shut your eyes 
and try their meaning only by your ear, you will 
hear it abundantly asserted, that man hath no liberty 
at all to desire good, and can of himself do nothing; 
but if you compare their own language with itself, 
you will perceive that they insist on the natural 
liberty of the will, which means natural ability, and 
teach only the impotence which results from the will 
itself, as biased and perverted by the fall, and that the 
distinction of man's natural ability as a free agent, 
and his impotency through the perversity of his will, 
runs through all the creeds, and is as plainly recog- 
nized in them as it is in our own Confession. It is 
this habit of interpreting by sound, which demands a 
running exposition, or I should need to say nothing 
in exposition of the quotations from the former of the 
creeds. 

HARMONY OF THE PROTESTANT CONFESSIONS. 

The doctrines of the early reformers in Europe 
were misunderstood by the Catholics, against whom 
they contended, who maintained that they were all a 
set of schismatics; that they were perpetually jang- 
ling among each other, so that no two of them could 
agree; and on this alledged fact, they strengthened 
the great argument of their church as to the necessity 
of having some head on earth to the visible church, 
whose decisions might settle controversies and give 
12 



130 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Confession of Helvetia. Man's inability, moral and voluntary. 

uniformity to the faith. To meet this argument and 
repel it, the reformers got up this book, which is 
entitled, The harmony of the Confessions: the design 
of which was to show, by collating the Confessions 
of different evangelical churches, that the representa- 
tion of their enemies was false; and that, in all funda- 
mental points of faith, they were fully agreed. 

From this book, I am about to show what the Pro- 
testant churches, just come out of the fiery furnace of 
Papal persecution, held on the subject of the moral 
inability of man. I have already shown what was 
the opinion of the fathers. I shall now show that of 
the reformers. And I begin with the Confession of 
Helvetia. 

Confession of Helvetia. — 4 And we take sin to be 
that natural corruption of man, derived or spread 
from those our first parents unto us all, through 
which we being drowned in evil concupiscences, and 
clean turned away from God, but prone to all evil, full 
of all wickedness, distrust, contempt, and hatred of 
God, can do no good to ourselves, no not so much as 
think of any.' p. 58. 

Here we see that man's inability does not consist 
in any want of understanding or conscience, or any 
other attribute or power of a free agent; but that it 
is the effect of that which is moral and voluntary; that 
it arises from the evil concupiscence of a corrupt 
nature, the willful unbelief of a wicked heart. Men 
cannot do what is good. Why? Because they have 
a moral inability to do it. Who can bring a clean 
thing out of an unclean ? Again : 



MORAL INABILITY. 



131 



Free agency does not prevent sin, nor ensure obedience. 

6 We are to consider, what man was after his fall. 
His understanding indeed was not taken from him, 
neither was he deprived of will, and altogether 
changed into a stone or stock. Nevertheless, these 
things are so altered in man, that they are not able 
to do now, that which they could not do before his 
fall. For his understanding is darkened, and his will ? 
which before wasjfree, is now become a. servile will: 
for it serveth sin, not nilling, but willing: for it is 
called a will, and not a nilling. Therefore, as touch- 
ing evil or sin, man does evil, not compelled either by 
God or the Devil, but of his own accord; and in this 
respect he hath a most free will. 5 p. 60. 

The fall is here said not to have deprived man of 
free agency; not to have turned him into a stock or 
a stone; but that his free agency, as it did not suffice 
to keep him from sinning, does not suffice to raise 
him from the ruins of the fall. Again, let us listen to 
the same Confession. 

; The regenerate, in the choice and working of 
that which is good, do not only work passively, but 
actively. For they are moved of God, that them- 
selves may do that which they do. And Augustine 
doth truly alledge that saying, that God is said to be 
our helper. For no man can be helped, but he, that 
doth somewhat. The Manichees did bereave man of 
all action, and made him like a stone and a block, 
p. 62. 

Here we find that no man is helped by grace as a 
mere passive impotent machine; that he acts in work- 
ing out his salvation; and that God helps him as a 



132 



MORAL INABILITY. 



French Confession. Confession of Belgia. 

free agent, and not as a mass of lead. A piece of lead 
cannot be helped to rise. It may be lifted. But it 
cannot be helped. And for the simple reason, that 
it hath no agency of its own to be helped. 

The French Confession. — ' Also, though he be en- 
dued with will, whereby he is moved to this or that, 
yet insomuch as that is altogether captivated under sin, 
it hath no liberty at all to desire good, as of itself, but 
such as it hath received by grace and of the gift of God. 
We believe that all the offspring of Adam is infected 
with this contagion, which we call original sin, that 
is, a stain spreading itself by propagation, and not by 
imitation only, as the Pelagians thought, all whose 
errors we do detest. Neither do we think it neces- 
sary to search, how this sin may be derived from one 
unto another. For it is sufficient that those things 
which God gave unto Adam, were not given to him 
alone, but to all his posterity: and therefore we in 
his person being deprived of all those good gifts, are 
fallen into all this misery and curse.' pp. 68, 89. 

This Confession begins with the natural liberty of 
will to choose this way or that, and asserts only its 
moral impotence, as swayed by this bias of our con- 
stitution as affected by the fall. 

' Confession of Belgia. — Therefore whatever things 
are taught, as touching man's free will, [i. e. unbiased 
will,] we do worthily reject them, seeing that man is 
the servant of sin, neither can he do any thing of him- 
self but as it is given him from heaven : for who is so 
bold as to brag that he is able to perform whatever 
he listeth, when as Christ himself saith, no man can 



MORAL INABILITY. 



133 



Augsburgh Confession. — Sinner morally dead, not in natural powers. 

come unto me except my Father which hath sent me do 
draw him f* 

From the context of this verse, and the Catechism, 
it appears, that this drawing is accomplished by 
divine teaching, the reading and preaching of the 
word, made effectual by his Spirit. 

The Augsburgh Confession. — ; And this corruption 
of man's nature comprehendeth both the defect of 
original justice, integrity, or obedience, and also con- 
cupiscence. This defect is horrible blindness, and 
disobedience, that is, to wit, to w r ant that light and 
knowledge of God, which should have been in our 
nature being perfect, and to want that uprightness, 
that is, that perpetual obedience, that true, pure, and 
chief love of God, and those other gifts of perfect 
nature, p. 71. 

We have seen that Luther, the author of this Con- 
fession, teaches the natural ability of man, as a free 
agent — that all actual sin is voluntary: and every 
term employed here implies a moral, not a natural de- 
fect, the want of holiness, and the power of evil desire. 

All these witnesses of the truth hold to the free- 
dom of the will as opposed to coercion or necessity, 
but deny its right inclination: and thus, while they 
justify God's requirements, they throw the sinner at 
the feet of sovereign grace. There he lies dead, hope- 
lessly dead, not in body, not in natural power; but 
dead in sins, dead morally, dead in hatred to God, 
dead in unbelief, dead in willful and obstinate disobe- 
dience. And this distinction, once rightly appre- 
hended and firmly fixed in the mind, is equal to twenty 
12* 



134 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Difference between natural and moral inability. 

thousand candles lighted up and carried through the 
Bible. 

The demand, however, is often made — what differ- 
ence does it make whether the inability of the sinner 
is natural or moral, since the certainty of his destruc- 
tion without the Holy Ghost is just as great in one 
case as the other? and of what consequence is an 
ability never exerted, and a power that is never em- 
ployed? 

It might as well be said that muscular power un- 
exerted, is as if it were not; that intellect perverted, 
is the same as idiocy; and conscience seared, is the 
same as if none had been given; that bread rejected 
to starvation, is the same as inevitable famine — as to 
say, that the voluntary perversion of all the competent 
powers of free agency, is the same thing as their non- 
existence. 

Does it amount to the same thing, whether a man 
cannot be temperate, or can be and will not? cannot 
be honest, or can be and will not? A man as a free 
agent, may indeed make his own destruction as cer- 
tain as if he could not help it. But does it make no 
difference as to his character and desert, whether he 
perishes from the natural impossibility of being saved, 
or from a voluntary obstinacy in rejecting salvation? 
And does it amount to the same thing, in respect to 
the character of God, and the equity of his govern- 
ment, whether sinners fall under the operation of its 
penalties from a natural impossibility of laying hold 
on the provision.for escaping them by a timely repen- 
tance, or by a voluntary obstinacy in despising the 
riches of his goodness? Provided a man, as a matter 



MORAL INABILITY. 



135 



Difference between the natural and moral government of God. 

of certainty, will die at a given time — does it amount 
to the same thing, whether he was killed unavoidably 
or committed suicide? was thrust off a precipice 
against his will, or threw himself off? was poisoned 
unwittingly, or purposely poisoned himself? was as- 
sassinated by the dagger of another, or thrust a dag- 
ger into his own bosom? 

The difference between ability and inability in 
the subject, is the difference between the natural and 
moral government of God; in one of which his power, 
and wisdom, and goodness, are displayed in the su- 
perintendence of animals and instincts — in the other, in 
the administration of law, and the government of the 
immortal mind — in which his justice, and the rich- 
ness of his goodness, and the exceeding greatness of 
his mercy are to shine forever. But does it make no 
difference, whether his justice is illustrated in pun- 
ishing the impotent, or the unwilling? and his mercy 
in forgiving the nonperformance of impossibilities? 
or the wilful disobedience of reasonable requirements? 
It makes the difference between fatalism and free 
agency — confounding the pretension of the atheist to 
a temporary animalism, and compelling him to trem- 
ble under the responsibilities of an everlasting ac- 
countability, guilt and punishment. 

It stops the pestilent breath of sceptics and cavil- 
lers, by which thousands of youthful minds are per- 
verted—reasoning minds perplexed — pious minds 
distressed— and dissolute minds comforted with the 
hope of impunity in sin—because God is just, and sin 
is unavoidable. 



136 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Calvinism. Antinomianism. Infidelity. 

It takes away one of the most prevalent tempta- 
tions to the infidelity and atheism of the present day. 
In reading the works of atheists and infidels, and 
in attending to the objections of perverted minds, 
the exciting and exasperating cause seems to be, the 
supposition of accountability, associated with a con- 
stitutional, involuntary, unavoidable impotency. It 
is the belief that the Bible and the Calvinistic Con- 
fessions attach accountability and punishment to a 
natural impotency, which provokes and sustains 
three-fourths of the atheism and infidelity of our 
nation. They would admit the equity of a govern- 
ment, requiring according to what a man hath — but 
are provoked and enraged at the supposed injustice 
of punishment, unconnected with the possibility of 
obedience in the subject, and understanding, and 
being assured by masters in Israel, that the Bible- and 
our Confession teach this, they turn and rend the Bible. 
The distinction between natural and moral inability, 
counteracts the antinomian perversions of the Cal- 
vinistic system. Through all periods of the church 
since the reformation, there have been antinomian 
Calvinists, and eras of outbreaking antinomian 
ultraism; and it has arisen from giving to the de- 
crees of God and their execution, the force of irre- 
sistible causes, and to man the action of a passive 
machine; and though in some it has stopped in the 
frozen regions of intellectual formality and presump- 
tuous reliance on God's efficiency, without human 
instrumentality — in the less intellectual and more 
heated and fanatical, it has degenerated not unfre- 



MORAL INABILITY. 



137 



Difference between ancient and modern antinomianism. 

quently into the most reckless licentiousness. So 
the same opinions operated among the Jews, as we 
learn by the terrible interrogations of the prophet — 
'Will ye lie, and steal, and commit adultery, and 
swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and come 
into this house which is called by my name, and say 
we are delivered to do all these abominations? We 
have no power over ourselves. We do but obey the 
irresistible laws of our nature. We are delivered by 
the constitution God has given us, to do all these 
things.' The only difference between these ancient 
and modern licentious antinomians is, that the ancient 
denied accountability entirely; while the latter attach 
it to fatality, and bring in the grace of God to de- 
liver from a natural impotency. All these obliqui- 
ties of abused Calvinism have been pushed out, as I 
believe, by the system of a supposed fatality of will 
to evil. 

The one is the occasion of great perplexity and 
suffering to the pious, and not unfrequently to chris- 
tian ministers. They submit to it as very right, be- 
cause God does it. But it is a dark and painful sub- 
ject — they are embarrassed with it in their preaching, 
and still more embarrassed in their attempts to meet 
and answer the objections it creates, and at times 
are excruciated with its bearings on their common 
sense and feelings. 

These different theories manifest their different 
results in preaching. The one tends to the earnest 
inculcation of immediate, spiritual obedience, after 
the example of prophets, apostles, and the whole 



138 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Confession of Faith misunderstood and misrepresented. 

Bible. The other to the substitution of unregenerate 
prayers and strivings, with promises of gracious aid; 
instead of commanding and entreating all men every 
where to repent and fly to the Savior, by the w 7 rath 
of God abiding on them, and the terrors of the Lord 
coming on them. 

The different effects of our Confession, when ex- 
pounded, as teaching a real free agency, or a real 
fatality, cannot be concealed or denied. By very 
large portions of the community, the construction 
of natural inability in our Creed, is supposed to teach 
fatality, associated with accountability, environing 
our church with the most rancorous hostility and 
immoveable prejudice, and raising up between our- 
selves and other denominations an impassable barrier, 
and giving them motive and opportunity to impede 
and annoy us. The most successful means employed 
againt our church in many places, have been the 
printing and circulation of our Confession, as a text 
book for comment. They do, indeed, misunderstand 
and misinterpret its meaning, but perhaps honestly, 
inasmuch as they are sustained by the exposition of 
some of the ministers of our own church — and should 
the highest judicature of our church pronounce the 
exposition correct, it would no doubt greatly facilitate 
their labor. 

In addition to the Christian fathers and the Protes- 
tant Confessions, on the subject of moral inability, I 
refer to every one of the authorities I have quoted, 
to Luther, Calvin, Turretine, Witherspoon, Edwards, 
Bellamy, Hopkins, Dwight, Spring (father and son,) 



MORAL INABILITY. 139 
Dr. Greene's and Dr. Witherspoon's views of moral inability. 

Wilson of Philadelphia, Woods, Tyler and Dr. 
Matthews, as teaching the moral inability of man 
as consisting in an uncoerced voluntary aversion 
to spiritual obedience, not merely in consecutive 
volition, but in a permanent character, which is 
voluntary and culpable, because, as Turretine says, 
6 founded in a habit of corrupt will. 5 I close the quo- 
tations with Dr. Greene's account of moral inability. 
He says — 

4 1 conclude the present lecture with a quotation 
from Dr. Witherspoon, in which my own views of 
the topic before us are correctly expressed — " As to 
the inability of man to recover himself by his own 
power, though I would never attempt to establish a 
metaphysical system of necessity, of which infidels 
avail themselves in opposition to all religion, nor pre- 
sume to explain the influence of the Creator on the 
creature; yet nothing is more plain, from scripture, 
or better supported by daily experience, than that 
man by nature is in fact incapable of recovery, with- 
out the power of God specially interposed. I will 
not call it a necessity arising from the irresistible 
laws of nature. I see it is not a necessity of the 
same kind as constraint ; but I see it an impossibility, 
such as the sinner never does overcome." ' — Christ 
Advocate, 1831; p. 349. 

If there be any doubt of Dr. Witherspoon's and 
Dr. Greene's meaning, the following exposition of 
Witherspoon himself may throw some light on the 
subject. 

In this passage, Witherspoon, speaking the ap- 



140 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Inability only moral, and lies in aversion of the heart to God. 

proved sentiments of Dr. Greene, disclaims the infi- 
del system of natural necessity, asserts an incapacity 
in man to recover himself to holiness without the 
power of God — not, however arising from the irre- 
sistible laws of nature, not a necessity of the same 
kind as constraint, but such an impossibility as the 
sinner never does overcome. This is correct, and is a 
good statement of natural ability and moral inability. 

6 Since mention has been made of perfect conformity 
to the will of God, or perfect obedience to his law, as 
the duty of man, which is indeed the foundation of 
this whole doctrine, I think it necessary to observe, 
that some deny this to be properly required of man, 
as his duty in the present fallen state, because he is 
not able to perform it. But such do not seem to 
attend either to the meaning of perfect obedience, or 
to the nature or cause of this inability. Perfect 
obedience is obedience by any creature, to the ut- 
most extent of his natural powers. Even in a state 
of innocence, the holy dispositions of Adam would 
not have been equal in strength and activity to those 
of creatures of a higher rank: but surely to love God, 
who is infinitely amiable, with all the heart, and above 
all, to consecrate all his powers and faculties, without 
exception, and without intermission, to God's service, 
must be undeniably the duty of every intelligent crea- 
ture. And what sort of inability are we under to 
pay this? Our natural faculties are surely as fit for 
the service of God as for any baser purpose: the ina- 
bility IS ONLY MORAL, AND LIES WHOLLY IN THE AVERSION 
OF OUR HEARTS FROM SUCH EMPLOYMENT. Does this then 



MORAL INABILITY. 



141 



Man by nature incapable of recovery without the power of God. 

take away the guilt? Must God relax his law because 
we are not willing to obey it? Consult even modern 
philosophers; and such of them as allow there is any 
such thing as vice, will tell you, that it lies in evil or 
misplaced affections. Will then that which is ill in 
itself excuse its fruits from any degree of guilt or 
blame? The truth is, notwithstanding the loud 
charge of licentiousness upon the truths of the gos- 
pel, there is no other system that ever I perused, 
which preserves the obligations of the law of God in 
its strength: the most part of them, when thoroughly 
examined, just amount to this, that men are bound, 
and that it is right and meet and fit that they should 
be as good and as holy as they themselves incline.' 
— Wither spoon, vol. 1, p. 45. 

This is all which any one, from Justin Martyr to 
this day, has taught, concerning man's natural ability: 
viz. that he is able to obey, in respect to any hind- 
rance arising from the irresistible laws of nature, 
including necessity of sinning of the same kind as 
constraint. Yet nothing is better supported from 
scripture, than that man by nature is in fact incapa- 
ble of recovery, without the power of God specially 
interposed, though not 4 an impossibility such as the 
sinner cannot, but such as he never does over- 
come;' for, as Howe says, ; notwithstanding the 
soul's capabilities, its moral incapacity, I mean its 
wicked aversation from God, is such as none but God 
himself can overcome. Now if all these writers, 
including Dr. Greene, ; disclaim,' as he does, 'any 
metaphysical system of necessity of which infidels 

13 



142 



MORAL INABILITY. 



The whole orthodox church united in the doctrine of natural ability. 

avail themselves in opposition to all religion, — any 
necessity of persisting in actual sin, arising from the 
irresistible laws of nature; and only insist that by the 
fall such an aversation of man's will from God has 
been occasioned as constitutes such an impossibility 
as the sinner never does overcome: I think it must 
be admitted that the whole orthodox church have been, 
and are, singularly united in the doctrine of man's 
natural ability of uncoerced will, and in his moral 
impotency, by reason of a biased and perverted will. 

I subjoin a few examples of natural and moral inabi- 
lity, as the terms are familiarly employed in the Bible. 

Natural Inability. — 4 Thou canst not see my 
face and live.' Moses desired the full orbed vision 
of the glory of God; but he is answered that it would 
destroy his life, his natural powers could not sus- 
tain the overpowering manifestation. David said of 
his child, after its death, 4 can I bring him back again?' 
and Solomon, 4 can a man take fire in his bosom, and 
his clothes not be burned?' And God demands, 4 can 
any hide himself that I shall not see him?' 4 The 
Chaldeans answered, there is not a man upon the 
earth that can show the king's matter — tell his 
dream and its interpretation.' 4 They which would 
pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass 
to us that would come from thence.' These are evi- 
dently specimens of natural inability, which no 
willingness or effort on the part of the agent could 
surmount. 

Let us now look at the same terms as implying 
inability from disinclination or contrary choice — 
6 aversation of will.' 



MORAL INABILITY. 



143 



Bible distinction between natural and moral inability — examples. 

4 With God all things are possible:' i. e. his natural 
power is equal to any act which is not in its own nature 
an impossibility. 'God who cannot lie' — 4 by two immu- 
table things in which it was impossible for God to lie.' 
Is God's omnipotence so limited that for want of power 
he could not utter falsehood? Is it not the infinite 
aversion of his holiness which constitutes the inabil- 
ity? * The strength of Israel will not lie. Your 
new moons, and Sabbaths, and calling of assemblies, 
I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn 
meeting.' The cannot is explained to mean his aver- 
sion to hypocrisy in worship: therefore it follows, 
4 when ye make many prayers I will not hear.' 

It is said of our Savior, that 4 he must needs go 
through Samaria.' Was he compelled to go through 
Samaria; or did he simply, for sufficient reasons, 
choose to go that way ? 

4 He could not do mighty works there, because of 
their unbelief.' Did the unbelief of man overpower 
divine omnipotence, so that Christ had no ability to 
work miracles; or did it furnish to his divine wisdom 
such reasons against it as made him prefer not to do 
it, expressed by the phrase could not) i. e. chose not 
to do it? 

4 Can the children of the bride chamber fast while 
the bridegroom is with them?' Doubtless they pos- 
sess the natural ability. But the meaning is, will 
they choose to do it? Can they — i. e. will they? 

4 Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of?' It was 
the cup of suffering and of ignominy; and he meant 
not whether they could feel pain, and persecution, 



144 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Bible distinction between natural and moral inability — examples. 

and shame, (for he told them that they should,) but 
whether they were willing, and believed that they 
should continue willing to suffer with him — ' can ye,' 
i. e. are you and shall you be willing? 

' If it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' Did 
our Savior doubt whether God had the power to 
deliver him instantly from suffering? 1 He knew he 
could do it; and only, as man, was not certain 
whether the agony he had already suffered might 
suffice, or the expiation demanded more. The 
phrase, if it be possible, means therefore, if it be wise 
and seem good in thy sight — if thou art satisfied and 
willing, let this cup pass, &c. ; but if otherwise, not 
my will, but thy will be done. ' Lord, if thou w T ilt, 
thou canst make me clean:' i. e. thou canst do it, if 
thou art willing, implying as in the case before, that 
he could not cleanse him, if unwilling, calling unwil- 
lingness inability. 

'This is a hard saying — who can hear it?' This 
means not that a sinner has no power to hear the 
'humbling doctrine of total depravity? but, who, as 
we say, can bear it, i. e. be willing — be pleased with 
it? From that time, many of his disciples went 
back, and walked no more with him. It was those 
that could not hear such sayings. 

4 Ye cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and the 
cup of Devils.' The natural ability of man qualifies 
him to sit at either table; but, while he prefers the 
table of Christ, he cannot, w T ill not prefer the table of 
devils. 

6 The carnal mind is enmity against God, not sub- 



MORAL INABILITY. 



145 



Bible distinction between natural and moral inability — examples. 

ject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. If 
this means a natural inability, how does regeneration 
help the matter, as it includes the creation of no new 
natural powers or faculties? But if it means that the 
carnal mind is one which, by its friendship for the 
world, is at enmity with God, then it is plain that 
the mind which prefers the creature to God, cannot 
at the same time prefer God to the creature, though 
the hindrance is not natural, but the inability of the 
will — a moral inability — a duty prevented by a con- 
trary choice. 

; And Joshua said, Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he 
is a holy God.' The people understood him to say, 
that they had no moral ability — no heart to serve him, 
because they were so sinful. But they replied, ' Nay, 
but we will serve the Lord' — we have the ability, be- 
cause we have the will. 

' How can ye believe who receive honor one of an- 
other, and seek not the honor that cometh from God? 5 
i. e. how can you believe, who prefer the praise of 
man more than the praise of God? who voluntarily 
set at naught Jesus Christ? 

' The natural man cannot know the things of the 
kingdom of God;' but why can he not? what hinders? 

Ans. ; If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them who 
are lost, in whom the God of this world hath blinded 
the hearts of them that believe not.' ; No man can 
come unto me except the Father draw him' — i. e. by 
his hearing and being taught of God — making the 
reading, and especially the preaching of his word, the 
means of his effectual calling by his Spirit. 

13* 



146 MORAL INABILITY. 

This distinction not confined to the Bible, but universal. 

These examples, to which thousands might be ad- 
ded, decide that the Scriptures of the Old and New 
Testament, given by inspiration of God, do maintain 
the distinction between things whose existence is 
perverted for want of sufficient capacity in the agent, 
and things which lie within the limits of his capacity, 
and are only prevented by his choice — and that both 
are expressed by the terms cannot, impossible^ unable, 
&c. — leaving it to the nature and connections of the 
subject to indicate the peculiar meaning — and never, 
except in theological controversy, or the cavillings 
of sinners, leading to any mistake. 

I have said that this use of the terms cannot, una- 
ble, &c. to indicate those things which men are able to 
perform, but do not choose to do, is not a phraseology 
peculiar to the Bible, but is a mode of speaking, into 
which the universal mind of man in all nations, ages, 
and languages has fallen — from the familiarity of con- 
versational and business dialect, up to the most la-, 
bored efforts of argument and eloquence. 

I ask my neighbor, who is on a sick bed, are you 
able to walk? and he replies, I am not. When re- 
stored to health, I inquire of him, can you assist me 
in my business to-day? and he replies, I cannot. I 
should be glad to oblige you, but my own business 
compels me to go another way— or in the language 
of the gospel, ' I must needs attend to my own mat- 
ters.' How often when a man is provoked at the 
conduct of his neighbor, do we hear the indignant 
exclamation, 'it is too bad — I cannot bear it/ And 
how common is it to say of a man, strongly prejudiced 



MORAL INABILITY. 



147 



Examples from theological writers — Edwards and Buck. 

by interest or passion — he cannot hear, cannot see, 
cannot understand— and of the miser, when the cry 
of the widow and the fatherless assails him— he can- 
not give. Gold is his god, and his heart is made of 
stone. 

The following examples from Edwards, and Buck, 
and a few other writers of eminence, will suffice both 
to illustrate the nature of the distinction between 
natural and moral inability, and the usus loquendi of 
theological, political, and literary authors. . 

Edwards.— ' To give some instances of this moral 
inability — a woman of great honor and chastity, may 
have a moral inability to prostitute herself to her 
slave. A child of great love and duty, may be una- 
ble to be willing to kill his father. A drunkard, un- 
der such and such circumstances, may be unable to 
forbear taking of strong drink. A very malicious man 
may be unable to exert benevolent acts to an enemy, 
or to desire his prosperity; yea, some may be so under 
the power of a vile disposition, that they may be un- 
able to love those who are most worthy of their 
esteem and affection. A strong habit of virtue, and 
a great degree of holiness, may cause a moral inability 
to love wickedness in general, may render a man un- 
able to take complacence in wicked persons or things; 
or to choose a wicked life, and prefer it to a virtuous 
life. And on the other hand, a great degree of habit- 
ual wickedness may lay a man under an inability to 
love and choose holiness; and render him utterly un- 
able to love an infinitely holy being, or to choose and 
cleave to him as his chief good.' 



148 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Examples from political and literary authors — Bacon — Johnson. 

Buck. 

Natural Inabitity. Moral Inability. 

k Cain could not have killed 4 Cain could not have killed 
Abel, if Cain had been the Abel, if Cain feared God, and 
weakest, and Abel aware of loved his brother, 
him. Potiphar's wife could not re- 
Jacob could not rejoice in Jo- joice in it, if she continued un- 
seph's exaltation before he heard der it, 

of it. Had that woman been a very 

The woman mentioned in 2d affectionate mother, she could not 

Kings vi. 29, could not kill her have killed her own son in a time 

neighbor's son and eat him, when of plenty, as she did in a time of 

he was hid, and she could not find famine. 

him. If a dutiful, affectionate son 

Hazael could not have smoth- had been waiting on Benhadad 

ered Benhadad, if he had not in Hazael's stead, he could not 

been suffered to enter his cham- have smothered him, as Hazael 

ber.' did.' 

There is hardly an author of repute, from the time 
of Alfred to the present day — whether a poet, a his- 
torian, an essayist, or a metaphysician, who does not 
afford abundant examples of such use of the word 
cannot. I select a few from known and classical 
authors. 

Lord Bacon. — ; A man's person hath many relations 
which he cannot put off. A man cannot speak to his 
wife, but as a husband; to his son, but as a father; to 
his enemy, but upon terms.' p. 186. 

Dr. Johnson. — In apologising for the omission of 
many business terms, his Dictionary says — 6 1 could 
not visit caverns to learn the miner's language, nor 
take a voyage to perfect my skill in the dialect of 
navigation, nor visit warehouses of merchants, and 
shops of artificers, to gain the names of wares, tools, 
and operations of which no mention is made in books/ 

Again, moral and natural inability are brought to* 
gether in one sentence: 



MORAL INABILITY. 



149 



Examples from Shakspeare, Burke, Webster. 

'There never can be wanting some who will con- 
sider that a whole life cannot be spent on syntax and 
etymology, and that even a whole life would not be 
sufficient.' 

Shakspeare — who is as noted for using language 
as men in every situation use it, as he is for delinea- 
tion of character — 

'Pra#, I cannot. 
Tho' inclination be as sharp as will, 
My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent ; 
And, like a man to double business bound, 
I stand in pause where I shall first begin, 
And both neglect.' 
4 But O, what form of prayer 

Can serve my turn ? Forgive me my foul murd er I 
That cannot be ; since I am still possessed 
Of those effects for which I did the murder, 
My crown, mine own ambition and my queen.' 

Hamlet, Scene 2, Act 3. 

Burke. — ' I cannot remove the eternal barrier s of 
creation. 5 This was a physical impossibility. But is 
the following, occurring just before in the same speech, 
physically impossible? ' I cannot insult and ridicule 
the feelings of millions of my fellow creatures, as Sir 
Edward Coke insulted one excellent individual ' (Sir 
Walter Raleigh) at the bar.' Speech on Conciliation 
with America. 

Webster. — 4 This court, then, does not admit the 
doctrine, that a legislature can repeal statutes creat- 
ing private corporations. If it cannot repeal them 
altogether, of course it cannot repeal any part of 
them, or impair them, or essentially alter them with- 
out the consent of the corporators.' But if the court 
had chosen to be unjust, could they not do this? . Was 
it physically impossible? 



150 



MORAL INABILITY. 



Examples from Hamilton, Story. 

So in the same speech he says in still stronger lan- 
guage — ' In the very nature of things, a charter can- 
not be forced upon any body; no one can be compelled 
to accept a grant.' 

But is it literally impossible for one to be compelled 
by suitable power ? 

So a few lines after — c It cannot be pretended that 
the legislature, as successor to the king in this part 
of his prerogative, has any power to revoke, vacate, 
or alter this charter.' But if one chose to pretend 
this, could he not? — Webster's Speech in case Dart- 
mouth College vs. William H. Woodward. 

Alexander Hamilton. — 4 It cannot be affirmed, that 
a duration of four years, or any other limited dura- 
tion, woulii completely answer the end proposed.' — 
Federalist^ o. 61. 

Surely he knew that it could be affirmed, if any 
chose to. 

Judge Story. — 'Had the faculties of man been 
competent to the framing of a system of government 
which would leave nothing to implication, it cannot 
be doubted, that the effort would have been made by 
the powers of our Constitution.' — Com. on Constitu- 
tion, (abridged) p. 147. 

It certainly could not, reasonably, but would it be 
out of the power of mind, to do so ? 

But it is said, if men, as free agents, are in reality 
able to obey the gospel — how does it happen, that 
under such a pressure of motive, no one of the human 
race should ever have done it? and suppose we could 
not tell, and should admit that it is w r onderful, as 



MORAL INABILITY. 



151 



Sinful nature of man prevents his obedience to the gospel. 

God does — would it follow, that the reason is the nat- 
ural impossibility of evangelical obedience? How 
could it be wonderful, that men do not of themselves 
obey the gospel, if the reason of it is that it is a nat- 
ural impossibility? Is it wonderful, that men do not 
create worlds, or uphold or govern the universe? and 
why should the nonperformance of one impossibility 
be more wonderful than another? Can there be no 
uniformity of character without a coercive necessity 
producing it? Is not God of one mind, immutable, 
yet free? Are not the angels free who kept their 
first estate? And are not the fallen angels, though 
immutably wicked, as voluntary in their opposition 
to God, as the holy angels are voluntary in their obe- 
dience? As to the uniform disobedience of fallen man 
until renewed by the Holy Ghost, we have only to 
say, it is a matter of fact, well authenticated, that 
free agents do so — that it is a part of the terriffic 
nature of sinful man to baffle all motives, and be vol- 
untarily but unchangeably wicked — persevering in 
rebellion, amid commands, prohibitions,. promises, and 
threatenings, and the entreaties of the holy universe, 
and the weepings and wailings of the damned. 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



There is no subject in theology on which it is 
more difficult to speak with clearness and accuracy, 
than concerning the effects of the fall on the posterity 
of Adam, and the condition of the human mind be- 
fore it arrives at the point of developing its intel- 
lectual and moral powers in actual sin. Nor is it 
wonderful, because neither intuition nor philosophy, 
nor personal communion with infant mind, makes us 
acquainted with its attributes. For this reason, 
when I have spoken on the subject, I have confined 
myself uniformly to the facts in the case revealed in 
the Bible, and discarded pertinaciously all theorizing. 

What the precise errors are, which I am supposed 
to hold, I do not know; but from the evidence relied 
on, and the general course of the argument, it would 
seem that I am supposed to hold the Pelagian doc- 
trine on the subject; that I deny that Adam was the 
federal head and representative of his race; that the 
covenant was made not only with Adam, but also 
with his posterity; that the guilt of his sin was im- 
puted to them; that there is any such thing as native 
depravity ; or that infants are depraved. That on 
the contrary, I hold and teach, that infants are inno- 

14 



154 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Error of faith denied. Circumstantial evidence* 

cent, and as pure as Adam before the fall; and that 
each one stands or falls for himself, as he rises to per- 
sonal accountability; and that there is no such thing 
as original sin, descending from Adam by ordinary 
generation; and that original sin is not sin, or in any 
sense deserving of God's wrath and curse. 

Now every one of these assumed errors of my faith, 
I deny to be my faith. They ascribe to me opinions 
which I have never held or taught, and, as I shall 
show, there is no evidence that I ever taught one 
of them. 

There is no more evidence of my holding or teach- 
ing the doctrines of Pelagius on original sin, than 
there is of my holding the doctrine of Mahomet, or the 
Brahmins, or the Pope. And though I doubt not that 
my direct evidence will be satisfactory, I will not 
omit that which is collateral and circumstantial. 
My religious education was superintended by pious 
Calvinists of blessed memory; and was as orthodox 
as the Assembly's Catechism, committed to memory, 
could make it. My convictions of sin were in ac- 
cordance with my educational belief, and were deep 
and distressing, to the cutting off of all self-righteous 
hope from native excellence, or acceptable obedience 
in" any action, social, civil, or religious, and laid me 
low in an agony of self despair, at the footstool of 
mercy, as unholy, totally depraved, justly condemned, 
and hopeless of regeneration and pardon but through 
the infinite sovereign mercy of God, through the 
merits of Christ. And the change which led me 
to hope, and has sustained me in my ministry, and 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



155 



Theological education — authors studied. 

holds up my hopes of heaven, was, I full well know, 
' not of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the will 
of the flesh, but of God ;' so that if I am a Pelagian 
now, in my faith, few men can be more inexcusable 
in obliterating the teachings of a pious education, or 
the teachings of God's holy Spirit in my own distress- 
ing experience. But I have not gone back. I remem- 
ber the horrid pit, and have also in fresh recollection 
the wormwood and the gall; and it is knowing the 
terrors of the Lord, and the love of Christ in my de- 
liverance from them, which, if I am not deceived, 
have sustained and animated me in the work of 
the ministry. My theological education was un- 
der Dwight; and the authors which contributed to 
form and settle my faith, were Edwards, Bellamy, 
Witherspoon, Dwight, and Fuller. With such 
favorite authors for my guide, I have perceived in 
myself no retrocession from my early convic- 
tions. The doctrines which have constituted the 
body and power of my preaching, so far as it has 
had any, have been — the doctrine of God's decrees, 
the fall, the native and total depravity of man, elec- 
tion, effectual calling, or regeneration by the special 
influence of the Holy Spirit, justification by the merits 
of Christ through faith, and the perseverance of the 
saints; doctrines not commonly, 1 believe, found in 
alliance with Pelagian notions of native excellence 
and regeneration by moral suasion: and my preaching, 
if Pelagians or Unitarians have claimed me, has never 
seemed to satisfy them, or the results of it to corres- 
pond with what they claimed to be the proper fruits 



156 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Antinomianism and Pelagianism, both avoided. 

of correct preaching; they have been the results of 
Calvinistic preaching, in convictions of sin and appa- 
rent conversions to God; such as Pelagians ridicule 
and denounce as fanaticism, instead of the fruits of 
the Spirit. 

I have never been ultra Calvinistic, pushing my 
opinions towards antinomian fatality; nor have I at 
all more leaned to the doctrine of Pelagain free will 
and human self sufficiency; and in doctrine I am 
what I ever have been, having gained only the 
more accurate and comprehensive knowledge which 
use and study afford, and the facilities of presenting 
to every man his portion in due season, as the re- 
sult of experience. All this however is nothing against 
positive evidence of defection. But no such evidence 
has been produced. The chief evidence relied on, 
is contained in my sermon on the native character of 
man. But that sermon w T as not designed to teach, and 
does not teach professedly, the doctrine of original sin. 
It has no direct respect to that doctrine. There is 
not a w r ord in the sermon designed to state, explain, 
prove, or apply, that doctrine. The subject of the 
sermon is, the total depravity of adult man, and 
affords not the least evidence of what my opinions 
are on the subject of original sin. By the laws of 
interpretation, therefore, you are not permitted to 
travel out of the record, and apply to infants and 
original sin, the language* I have held with express 
and exclusive reference to the total depravity of 
adult man. It was occasioned by a local exigency in 
my congregation, the restiveness of a man of talents 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



157 



Analysis of sermon on native character of man — title. 

and learning under the preaching of the doctrine of 
total depravity, especially in its denial of the native 
virtues and acceptable doings of unregenerate men. 
It was Pelagianism, in substance, that rose up against 
me, and the sermon was purposely constructed so 
as by explaining and proving the doctrine of total 
depravity, to put it down. The correctness of this 
representation, will be sustained by an analysis of 
the sermon. 

ANALYSIS OF THE SERMON ON THE NATIVE CHARACTER OF MAN. 

Its title precludes any reference to original sin; it 
is, the native character of man; meaning, of course, 
not his native constitution, but the character which 
all men first form who come up to personal action. 
Native, as applied to character, is sanctioned by cor- 
rect theological use, and means the character which 
all men first sustain, in the exercise of their own pow- 
ers, under the perverting influence of the fall. 

The text has exclusive regard to adults, to regene- 
rated man: 'Whosoever loveth is born of God.' 

It is regarded in its exposition as holy love — the 
fulfilling of the law — the principle of evangelical obe- 
dience — religion — does not belong to men by nature 
— is never a quality of his heart by natural birth, and 
is the result of a special divine interposition which 
makes him a child of God. Both the text and intro- 
duction, therefore, respect regeneration in adult man. 

It is the object of the sermon to prove, that man is 
not religious by nature — meaning by man, the race; 
and by 'not religious by nature,' that there is nothing 
14* 



158 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Analysis of sermon on native character of man — argument. 

in the constitution of adult man, of which religion is 
ever the result, without a change of heart by the 
special influence of the Holy Ghost. The proof in 
every particular respects evidently and only adult 
man and actual sin. 

Universal experience evinces that the supreme 
love of the world constitutes the first character of 
man. All men are conscious that they set their 
affections first supremely on the world, and not on 
God. Awakened sinners discover that they have 
no true love to God, and christians can look back to 
the time when evidently they had none. 

The history of the world is inconsistent with 
the supposition of native religion — its idolatry, its 
animalism, gluttony, intemperance, and lust — its 
wars, frauds, violence, and blood — love to God and 
man in the hearts of all by nature, could not have 
made such a history as that of our world has been. 

The Bible affords no testimony to the piety of man 
by nature — says nothing good of the human heart — 
not a syllable. 

It ascribes to the heart of man by nature a charac- 
ter inconsistent with religion — evil only, deceitful, 
fully set on evil, desperately wicked, full of madness. 

The scriptural account of childhood shows, that 
man is not born religious. Every imagination of 
the heart is evil from his youth — the wicked are es- 
tranged from the womb — no religion born with them. 

All the generic descriptions of the race are such as 
preclude religion as the native character of man. 

Man is the generic of the race. But what is man 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



159 



Analysis of sermon on native char, of man— reversal of argument. 

that he should be clean? or the son of man that he 
should be righteous? 

The world is another generic term characteristic 
of the race. But it is a world which hated Christ, 
and whose friendship is enmity with God. 

The flesh is another. But the carnal mind is en- 
mity against God. 

The whole world is divided into classes, and all men 
are described as holy or unholy, righteous or wicked. 
But never as righteous first, but always as wicked 
first, and as becoming righteous by the power of the 
Spirit. 

It was while we were enemies that Christ died for 
us; and it is only by being reconciled, that we be- 
come religious. 

It is the direct testimony of the omniscient God, 
that all have gone out of the way — become vile — 
none that do good, no not one. 

The alledged universal necessity of a change to 
qualify men for heaven, is proof that they have no 
religion. 

The reversal of this argument shows its force. If 
the first accountable character of man is a religious 
character, this entire body of evidence must be re- 
versed. All men must be conscious of supreme love 
to God in early life; and conviction of sin and a mor- 
al renovation must be confined to those who have 
lost, their religion; while the great body of christians 
must be supposed to be such without the conscious- 
ness of any change. At the same time the history of 
the world must be found to be a history of the fruits 



160 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Analysis of sermon on native char, of man— reversal of argument. 

of piety — idolatry itself being only an aberration of 
religious affection in the fast friends of God, emulous 
to please their heavenly Father! It should, moreover, 
be found written- upon the unerring page, ; Every im- 
agination of man's heart is good from his youth. The 
children of men have not gone out of the way. There 
is none who doth not understand and seek God, and do 
good, no, not one. The heart of the sons of men is full 
of goodness, out of which proceed holy thoughts, benev- 
olent deeds, chastity, truth, and reverence for God. 
What, therefore, is man, that he should be wicked? or 
he that is born of a woman, that he should not be re- 
ligious? How lovely and pure is man, who drinketh 
in righteousness like water. This is the approbation, 
that darkness is come into the w r orld, and men have 
loved light more than darkness, because their deeds 
are good. The whole world lieth in righteousness. 
He [Christ] was in the world and the world knew 
him. O righteous Father, the world hath known thee. 
The friendship of the world is friendship with God. 
If the world hath loved you, ye know that it loved 
me before it loved you. Be ye, therefore, conformed 
to the world, and be ye not transformed by any re- 
newing of your mind. My Spirit shall always strive 
with man because he is spirit. For that which is born 
of the flesh is spirit. Marvel not that I say unto you 
ye must not be born again. For the works of the 
flesh are love, joy, peace, faith; and the fruits of the 
Spirit are love, joy, peace, faith. In me, that is, in 
my flesh, dwelleth every good thing. Jesus Christ 
came to seek and to save those who were not lost; 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



161 



Analysis of sermon on native character of man — inferences. 

and he died not for his enmies — not the just for the 
unjust, but for his righteous friends. The gospel de- 
mands of men no new character; and all the doctrines 
of the Bible imply the early and universal piety of the 
human family.' 

All the inferences from the doctrine as thus proved, 
refer to man as an adult subject of the government of 
God. 

1. This discussion discloses the nature of depravity 
in unrenewed man — it consists in the want of love to 
God, and loving the creature more than God; in covet- 
ousness, which is idolatry, having other gods before 
him. 

2. The depravity of adult man is voluntary, as op- 
posed to a coercive necessity of sinful choice. 

3. It is positive. Not merely the want of love to 
God, but actual transgression against God. Active 
enmity. 

4. It is great, as committed against a being of in- 
finite excellence — a violation of infinite obligation, 
against the most powerful motives in the most aggra- 
vating circumstances, and with unparalleled obstinacy 
of determination. 

5. The depravity of man implied in the absence of 
religion is entire — fallen adult man is totally depraved. 

6. It illustrates the nature and necessity of regen- 
eration, as being the commencement of holy love to 
God in the soul; its absence, death in sin; its presence, 
by the power of the Spirit, a resurrection from the 
dead. It is a change perceptible by its effects, and 
instantaneous in its commencement. There is a mo- 



162 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Sermon, where written: circumstances which occasioned it. 

meat when, he who loved the world more than God, 
gives it up, and gives his heart to God- — a time when 
the metanoia comes to pass. 

This is my Pelagian sermon. A sermon on total 
adult depravity, and its nature as voluntary, consist- 
ing in enmity to God, selfishness, pride, covetous- 
ness, idolatry, impenitence, and unbelief. 

The only alledged evidence of its Pelagianism is 
contained in what is said about the voluntariness of 
actual sin in adult man, as opposed to a supposed 
created instinct, or the direct efficiency of God, pro- 
ducing actual sin by an irresistible and fatal necessity; 
But from the text, subject, argument, and inferences 
of the discourse, it is undeniable that it has reference 
only to actual sin and total depravity, and has no 
direct reference to original sin at all. It was 
written in Connecticut, anterior to the controversies 
which now agitate the church. It was demanded 
to encounter and resist the most specious Pelagian 
argument against the total depravity of man, which 
I have ever seen. It was deduced from the various 
noble and amiable traits of human constitution and 
conduct which survive the fall, and are always 
urged as matter of fact exceptions to the doctrine of 
total depravity. Such as taste and admiration of 
moral fitness; approbation of truth and justice; con- 
stitutional kindness and sympathy, and compassion; 
the natural affections, which unite the family in all 
their tenderness and power; the amiable constitutional 
temperaments which survive the fall; honor and hon- 
esty in dealings, and liberality, as opposed to covetous- 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



163 



Sermon written against Pelagianism. 

ness and miserly meanness; correct moral ty; power 
of conscience; public spirit; patriotism; great useful- 
ness, accompanied by a copious retinue of good works. 
The argument against total depravity was written, 
and read, and commented on with great ability, and in 
a manner which compelled me to provide the antidote. 
With an especial view, then, to meet and refute these 
Pelagian matter of fact exceptions, to the doctrine of 
total adult depravity, I constructed the sermon which 
is now adduced in evidence against me, on the sub- 
ject of original sin. I began with the position that 
unrenewed men have no true religion, because that 
w T as a point conceded; and having established it, as I 
believed, I proceeded to draw the inferences which, as 
I supposed, cut up by the roots these Pelagian virtues 
as having any claim to be considered valid exceptions 
to the doctrine of total depravity; leaving in its full 
force the evidence that in adult man there dwelleth no 
good thing, and that every imagination of his heart is 
evil only continually. Now, that this sermon, written 
on purpose to put down the Pelagian exceptions to 
total depravity, should be, years after, in another and 
distant department of the church, quoted and admit- 
ted as proof of my Pelagianism, would be an anom- 
aly of mental obliquity and injustice, which I am sure 
cannot find a place in the judicatures of the Presby- 
terian church. Even had it contained in the ardor of 
argument expressions not sufficiently guarded, and 
which by possibility might be interpreted to mean her- 
esy, no court, in the unbiased exercise of Christian 
candor, would permit them to be turned aside from the 



164 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Not the object of the sermon to prove the doctrine of original sin. 

main design and governing argument of the discourse. 
Much less where, though it was not the object of 
the sermon to establish the doctrine of original sin, it 
does so by proving two of the fundamental doctrines 
always relied on by the orthodox church, and by 
Edwards in particular, to prove the doctrine of origi- 
nal sin — I mean the doctrine of total depravity and 
the doctrine of regeneration. One of the main argu- 
ments of Edwards to prove original sin, is, the uni- 
versality and entireness of actual sin: from which he 
infers that, anterior to actual agency, there is in all 
men, as a consequence of our federal alliance with 
Adam, some common cause, ground, or reason of 
universal and total actual depravity, which he calls 
' the influence of a prevailing, effectual tendency in 
the nature of man,' to actual sin. And thus I prove 
the doctrine of original sin; incidentally, indeed, but 
really, by proving the actual, universal, total deprav- 
ity of man. There must be, and there is, in man, 
something which is the ground and reason that the 
will of fallen man does from the beginning act wrong 
— something anterior to voluntary action. To say 
that all men sin actually, and entirely, and univer- 
sally, and for ever, until renewed by the Holy Ghost, 
and that against the strongest possible motives, mere- 
ly because they are free agents, and are able to do 
so; and that there is in their nature as affected by the 
fall, no cause or reason of the certainty; is absurd. It 
is to ascribe the most stupendous concurrence of per- 
verted action in all the adult millions of mankind to 
nothing. The thing to be accounted for is the phe- 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



165 



Edwards against Arminian theory of self-determination. 

nomenon of an entire series of universal actual sin; 
and to ascribe the universal and entire obliquity of 
the human will to the simple ability of choosing 
wrong, is to ascribe the moral obliquity of a lost 
world to nothing. 

This was the point of the controversy in Edwards 
on the will, against the Arminian theory of self- 
determination. The free agency claimed by the Ar- 
minian was one which excluded not only force and 
absolute necessity of nature from deciding the will, 
but denied the existence of any internal constitution, 
or objective injluence of motive, as connected with 
our constitutional susceptibilities, in securing the ex- 
istence or determining the moral qualities of choice. 
. Edwards affirmed that there must be, and is, ante- 
rior to the exercise of free agency, some constitution 
of the agent and relevancy of motive, as the ground 
and reason of the certainty of choice, though not a 
coercive cause; and his antagonists deny that there 
is any cause, ground, or reason of the certainty of 
choice, holy or unholy, in or out of man, anterior to 
its existence — assuming the necessity of a perfect 
indifference of will in all cases immediately anterior 
to volition, and the actual uncertainty of choice, as 
affected by any cause or reason anterior to its exis- 
tence; and the necessity to its freedom and account- 
ability, that in every case it should be the -simple, 
uninfluenced energy of the mind itself. And what 
Edwards attempts to prove, and does prove, in his 
treatise on the will and on original sin, is, that to 
choice of any kind there is in the agent some consti- 

15 



166 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Edwards' views corroborated by our Confess, and standard writers. 

tution which is the ground or reason that motives 
become, not indeed the coercive causes, but the cer- 
tain occasions of volition; and that, in man, before 
the fall, there was a constitution, which was the 
ground and reason of the unperverted exercise of his 
will and affections in loving and obeying God; and 
that by the fall a change was affected in the nature 
of man anterior to voluntary action, which is the 
cause or reason of the universal certainty of the 
perversion of the will and affections of fallen man; and 
that the antecedents of perfect actual holiness and 
entire actual sin are properly denominated, with ref- 
erence to those certain results in action, a holy or an 
unholy nature: only guarding, as our Confession does, 
alike against the Antinomian fatality of will by force, 
and the Arminian self-determination, without any 
antecedent constitutional cause, ground, or reason, 
within or without. 

These views, as held by Edwards, and corrobora- 
ted by our own Confession and the standard writers 
of our church, comprehend the doctrine which I have 
always believed and preached; and never have I 
knowingly and intentionally, at any time expressed 
a sentiment, verbally or in writing, to the contrary. 

The falseness and folly of the common notion *of 
the self-determination of the mind by its own energy 
of will," without any cause or occasion even, is suffi- 
ciently manifest, in its opposition to the possibility of 
moral government on the part of God, or the possi- 
bility of praise or blame on the part of man: for 
moral government is the government of a lawgiver, 



ORIGINAL SIN. 167 
Theory of self-determination opposed to the government of God. 

influencing the will and conduct of subjects by the 
influence of laws, rewards, punishments, and admin- 
istration. But if nothing may approach the mind 
in the form of influence, having any tendency to 
destroy the dignified indifference of the will, or se- 
cure the certainty or probability even of volition, 
then, though self-government might exist, the gov- 
ernment of God could not; and nothing but the most 
perfect anarchy could exist as the accidental, un- 
caused, and unoccasioned action of millions of inde- 
pendent minds, acting without any cause, ground, or 
reason. Indeed it would render choice itself impos- 
sible, as it supposes a mind without susceptibility or 
desire of any thing, or one thing more than another, 
—a condition of mind precluding the possibility of 
choice, which always implies excited desire, and a 
prospect of some gratification, and without which 
man would be less capable of choice than a snail or an 
oyster: and even if he could choose, without desire, 
reason, or motive, the offspring of such a nondescript, 
mental anomaly, would be no more praise or blame 
worthy, than the motions of a pendulum or the tick- 
ings of a watch — uncertain of being till they come 
into being, and coming without any cause, ground, 
or reason — bubbles from the bottom of the muddy 
lake might as well be regarded as accountable and 
worthy of praise or blame as the volitions of men. 

I adopt, therefore, with approbation, the language 
of Professor Hodge, in his Commentary on Romans. 

; Of all the facts ascertained by the history of the 
world, it would seem to be among the plainest, that 



168 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Professor Hodge's views of original sin adopted. 

men are born destitute of a disposition to seek their 
chief good in God, and with a disposition to make 
self-gratification the great end of their being. Even 
reason, conscience, natural affection, are less univer- 
sal characteristics of our fallen race. For there are 
idiots and moral monsters often to be met with; but 
for a child of Adam, uninfluenced by the special 
grace of God, to delight in his Maker, as the portion 
of his soul, from the first dawn of his moral being, is 
absolutely without example among all the thousands 
of millions of men who have inhabited our world. If 
experience can establish any thing, it establishes the 
truth of the scriptural declaration, " that which is 
born of the flesh is flesh." It w T ould seem no less 
plain, that this cannot be the original and normal 
state of man; that human nature' is not now what it 
was when it proceeded from the hand of God. Every 
thing else which God has made answers the end of its 
being; but human nature, since the fall, has uniformly 
worked badly; in no one instance has it spontane- 
ously turned to God as its chief good. It cannot be 
believed that God thus made man; that there has been 
no perversioirof his faculties; no loss of some original 
and guiding disposition or tendency of his mind. It 
cannot be credited that men are now what Adam was, 
when he first opened his eyes on the wonders of cre- 
ation and the glories of God. Reason, scripture, and 
experience, therefore, all concur in support of the 
common doctrine of the Christian world, that the 
race fell in Adam, lost their original rectitude, and 
becamje prone to evil as the sparks to fly upward. 5 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



169 



Original sin implied in the sermon on native character of man. 

But in addition to this argumentative implication of 
original sin, I do, in the very passage claimed to 
deny it, expressly allude to and recognize its exis- 
tence, as a reality, only limiting its action as Edwards 
and our Confession do, as not forcing the will, or by 
any absolute necessity of nature, determining it to 
evil. I say: 

' Whatever effect, therefore, the fall of man may 
have had on his race, it has not had the effect to ren- 
der it impossible for man to love God religiously; 
and whatever may be the early constitution of man, 
there is nothing in it, and nothing withheld from it 
which renders [actual] disobedience unavoidable, and 
[actual] obedience impossible.' 

Finally, the language of the paragraph, interpreted 
by the laws of just exposition, does not teach or im- 
ply a denial of the doctrine of original sin, 

I have already shown that my sermon on the 
native character of man, was not designed to have 
any reference to original sin ; that it spake only of 
the present, actual condition of adult mind; and that 
the question how a man came into such a state, was 
not so much as touched; that I was teaching the exis- 
tence of total depravity against a wily and practised 
antagonist, with the sole view of cutting up his 
false Pelagian positions, and proving total depravity 
and the necessity of regeneration. 

To comprehend fully the import of my language, 
it must be understood that there were two philoso- 
phical theories in respect to the cause of adult actual 
depravity, the one holding it to be a moral instinct, 

15* 



170 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Two philosophical theories respecting adult actual depravity. 

a created faculty of the soul, as really as any other 
faculty which controlled the will according to its 
moral nature, as the helm governs the ship, and upon 
which the will could no more act, than the ship can 
act on the helm. The other a philosophy which dis- 
cards this instinctive, involuntary moral taste, and 
substitutes the direct efficiency of God, for the crea- 
tion of all exercises and acts of choice, good &nd bad. 

These philosophical theories were prevalent long 
before this controversy arose. The question con- 
cerning original sin, was not discussed in my congre- 
gation; touching that question, all was as quiet as the 
sleep of infancy. The question was as to the volun- 
tariness of the depravity of adult man. Keep this in 
remembrance, and then the import of the sermon 
cannot be misunderstood. After proving that the 
depravity of man is very great, I proceed to say 
that it is voluntary; and this doctrine I advance in 
opposition to the philosophy which represents man's 
actual sin, his actual, total depravity, as being the 
necessary, coercive result of a moral instinct, or of 
divine efficiency. The question was, whether the 
selfishness and enmity against God, and worldliness 
and pride, which obstructed evangelical obedience, 
in adult man, and made regeneration by the Spirit 
indispensable, was a state of mind produced and 
continued by a coercive necessity; and, in accord- 
ance with the Bible and the Confession of Faith, 
and the whole orthodox church, I say — no!— but, 
' that God has endued the will of fallen man with 
that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor by 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



171 



All actual sin is voluntary — Dr. Green. 

any absolute necessity of nature determined to good 
or evil. 5 It is this nature of adult man, in a state of 
personal accountability, and active depravity that I 
am speaking of, as the subject and whole argument 
of the sermon show, in every sentence and word 
of the page quoted; and it is of this total, actual 
depravity of man, which makes regeneration by the 
Spirit necessary, that I say it cannot be the product 
of ' an unavoidable necessity? and it is of actual holi- 
ness and sin that I am speaking, when I say, that to a 
holy or a sinful nature, perception, understanding, 
conscience, and choice are indispensable. And is this 
heresy? Does any one believe that personal ac- 
countability, and actual sin, and holiness, can exist 
without perception, understanding, conscience, and 
choice; and that the Bible and the Confession of Faith 
teach it? 

Dr. Green says, 'the parties in this controversy are 
agreed that all actual sin is voluntary, and therefore 
criminal and inexcusable.' — Ch. Adv. 1831, p. 348. 

Social, representative liability, and a just desert 
of punishment in that sense, is a possibility and a 
reality; but a social liability, and personal demerit, 
are quite different things; and if it shall be made to 
appear that the Bible and the Confession do teach 
the possibility of personal actual sin, without the 
existence of the faculties of perception, understand- 
ing, conscience, and choice, it will, as I believe, 
be regarded by the whole church of God as a new 
discovery. 

I call this actual depravity of man native, in accord- 



172 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Original sin one of the causes which prevent submission to God. 

ance with the language of the Bible and the most 
approved theological writers, to indicate its univer- 
sality, as what all men come to by nature, i. e. by 
the operation and influence of that change produced 
in the nature of man by the fall — to mark its posi- 
tiveness, as including actual enmity, selfishness, pride, 
and idolatry, instead of a mere want of conformity to 
the law of God — and especially to designate its perma- 
nence as compared to successive acts of choice, and 
especially its fearful immutability to all finite pow- 
er. The scriptures speak of the permanence and 
immutability of man's actual depravity — as a heart 
full of madness and of evil — fully set to do evil; and 
Turretin calls it a ' voluntary and culpable habit of 
will;' and Edwards says: 4 By a general and habitual 
moral inability, I mean an inability in the heart to all 
exercises or acts of will of that nature or kind, 
through a fixed and habitual inclination, or an ha- 
bitual or stated defect, or want of a certain kind of 
inclination.' 

Now, not only has all I have said on the page ob- 
jected to, a reference to the actual sin of adult man, 
as the ground of the necessity of regeneration, but it is 
all so guarded and tied down, and related to the sub- 
ject of actual sin, that it can by no possibility be torn 
away from it, and 'attached to the subject of original 
sin. For, in the very statements I make about the 
the voluntary nature of which I am speaking, I allude 
to the fall and original sin, and admit and include its 
existence among the causes which fortify adult man 
against submission to God, as I have more fully done 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



173 



Distinction between actual and original sin. 

in my exposition of the moral inability of man in 
this discussion, only making the reservation which 
the Confession makes — that original sin does not 
force the will to actual sin, nor by any absolute 
necessity of nature, determine it to evil so as that 
God is the author of sin, or violence offered to the 
will of the creatures; or the liberty or contingency 
of second causes (the power of choosing life or death) 
taken away, but is rather established. 

The declarations, that there is a time when actual 
sin commences, and that the first sin is voluntary, un- 
coerced, inexcusable, and might have been and ought 
to have been avoided as really as any of the actual 
sins that followed it, will not I apprehend alarm any 
large proportion of the church. The distinction be- 
tween original and actual sin has been universal in 
the orthodox church, and the more common opinion, 
as I suppose, has always been that actual sin does 
not commence from the womb, and that the time 
when social liability is succeeded by personal demerit 
for actual transgression, is not and cannot be exactly 
known to any but the eye of God. What I have 
asserted is, that whenever personal accountability 
does commence, the sinner is a free agent, and inex- 
cusable for his first as really as for any other actual sin. 

I perceive that what I wrote ten years ago, with 
my eye wholly on the subject of man's nature as an 
actual sinner and totally depraved, read by a person 
at the present time, in a estate of alarm and excitement 
about the Pelagian heresy, on the subject of original 
sin, might, if not read with great care and attention, 



174 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Sermon on original sin — quotations. 

be liable to be misunderstood, as denying that de- 
pravity of nature which is peculiar to original sin: 
but the moment the laws of candid, correct interpre- 
tation, are applied, the possibility of such an interpre- 
tation is precluded, and the true limit, meaning and 
intent of my language is made apparent. For it can- 
not be that a sermon professedly against the Pelagian 
notions of virtue and good works in man, as excep- 
tions to the doctrine of total depravity, and contain- 
ing a formal and labored argument in defence of that 
doctrine, and inferring from it the necessity of regen- 
eration, and an anti-Pelagian instantaneous regenera- 
tion by the special influence of the Holy Spirit, should 
be found intentionally teaching the very doctrine it set 
out to oppose, and opposing the very doctrine it was 
constructed to establish. 

Were any evidence beside the internal evidence of 
the discourse itself necessary, it is contained in a 
sermon written about the same time that this sermon 
on Native Character was written, and written profes- 
sedly on original sin. The following are my com- 
ments on several passages in Romans v. 

' For as by one man's disobedience many were made 
sinners. 5 Adam was created holy and placed in a state 
of probation — the consequences of which were to 
extend not only to himself, but to his posterity. If 
he continued holy, they would be born holy. If he 
became a sinner, his children would be born depraved. 
In the hour of temptation he fell and lost for a world, 
th6 inheritance of life, and entailed upon it the sad 
inheritance of depravity and wo. 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



175 



Lecture on the fall and its consequences — quotations. 

'For if by one man's offence death reigned by ofie,' 
how did death reign by one man's offence, if the 
depravity of his race was not the consequence of 
his sin? If his posterity are born holy, (innocent,) 
and become sinners by their own act, uninfluenced 
by what Adam did, then death enters the world not 
by one man, but by every man, 

'And so death has passed upon all men, for that all 
have sinned.' Passed upon infants possessing a de- 
praved nature, though they had not committed actual 
sin. They, as well as adults, are subjected to pain 
and death. They, as really as adults, need a Savior, 
and a change of heart by the Holy Ghost, to fit them 
for heaven. 

' The judgment was by one man to condemnation,' 
i. e. the sin of one man, and one single act of sin sub- 
jected his posterity to a depraved nature as the con- 
sequence. 

I give these quotations to show, that though when 
writing on the total actual depravity of man, my ex- 
pressions may have misled sftme to understand me as 
denying original sin; I did, at the same period, when 
writing professedly on that subject — recognize the 
doctrine fully and strongly, and at the time was nev- 
er, to my knowledge, misunderstood. 

What follows, is from my Lecture on the Fall and 
its Consequences, delivered in Boston and Cincinnati. 

4 By the appointment of God, the character and 
.destiny of man was inseparably connected with the 
conduct of Adam. He was in such a sense the fed- 
eral head and representative of his posterity — that 



176 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



The author's views of original sin. 

according to God's appointment called a covenant, 
had Adam continued holy, his posterity would have 
continued holy, as his disobedience has drawn after 
it the defection of the race. The universal bias of 
man to evil is denominated a depraved nature, on 
account of its \iniversal tendencies to actual sin.' 

Here I might stop; for I am under no obligation 
to volunteer statements of my opinions, in respect 
to the subjects on which I am accused. My errors 
are to be shown by evidence; and I say that, in this 
case, the evidence has utterly failed; and I might, 
therefore, repel the charge of heresy, as not estab- 
lished. But I have no secrets on this subject, nor in 
respect to any of the religious opinions which I hold. 
At my time of life, and especially under the circumstan- 
ces in which I am placed, both as pastor of a flock, 
and an instructer of the rising ministry of the church, 
I have no right to any secret opinions. I scorn con- 
cealment, and therefore I will declare with all open- 
ness, the things which I do believe. The presbytery 
shall not suspect me of*being a heretic. If I am a 
heretic, they shall know it. You shall have in respect 
to my views of original sin, the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth. 

1. As to the federal or representative character of 
Adam, and the covenant with him and his posterity. 
I have, through my whole public life, believed and 
taught, that the constitution and character of his en- 
tire posterity, as perverted or unperverted, depended 
on his obedience or defection; and that he was in this 
respect, and by God's appointment, constitutionally 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Dr. Bishop on Social Liabilities. 



177 



the covenant head and representative of his race. 
And that, in this view, all mankind descending from 
him, by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell 
with him in his first transgression: that is, their char- 
acter and destiny were decided by his deed. 

For a more ample expression of my views, I sub- 
mit the remarks of Dr. Bishop, President of the Miami 
University, on the subject of Social Liabilities, the 
best name that was ever devised for the idea. A name 
which, I hope, we shall all remember and fix in our 
minds, as it is calculated to avoid much error which 
has arisen from the use of other phraseology. In re- 
spect to the book from which I am about to quote, I 
heartily thank that great and good man, for having 
condensed so much truth into so small a compass; 
and I do believe that the simple substitution of this 
technic, ' social liability, 5 would carry us all out of the 
swamp together. For we in fact think, and ought to 
speak, the same thing. After illustrating the social 
liabilities of men, for the conduct of others in the 
family, in commercial relations, and as parts of a na- 
tion, and as social and moral beings affected by the 
nameless influences of the christian example and 
deeds of our fellow-men, he proceeds to say: 

; 1 . That every man is by his very nature, intimate- 
ly connected, in a great variety of ways, with thou- 
sands of his fellow-men, whom he has never seen; and 
that the conduct and the character of a single indi- 
vidual may have an extensive and a lasting influence 
upon millions of his fellow-men, though far removed 
from him, both as to time and place. 

16 



178 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Social liabilities classed under two general heads. 

' 2. That these liabilities may be classed under two 
general heads, viz: — Natural and Positive. The son 
inherits a diseased or a healthy body, and, in many 
cases, also an intellectual or moral character; and 
generation after generation sustains the character of 
their ancestors, by what may be called a natural in- 
fluence. Like produces and continues like. But in 
commercial and political transactions, lasting and im- 
portant liabilities are created and continued by posi- 
tive arrangements. 

; 3. That, in all cases of social liabilities, individual 
and representative responsibility, are always kept 
distinct. Nor is it, in the most of cases, a very diffi- 
cult thing to have a clear and distinct conception of 
these two. distinct responsibilities. 

6 Every citizen of these United States, who thinks 
at all, must feel that himself and his children, and his 
children's children, are deeply interested in the con- 
duct and character of the president of the United 
States, for the time being. An able and virtuous 
president, with an able and wise and faithful cabinet, 
must be a great blessing to the millions, both the born 
and unborn, on both sides of the Atlantic. And, on 
the other hand, a weak and a wicked president, and 
cabinet, must be the occasion of inconceivable in- 
conveniences, and real privations and sufferings, to 
countless millions, both of the present and succeeding 
generations. But yet no man ever thought of attrib- 
uting to himself, or to his children, the personal wis- 
dom, or intellectual ability, or inflexible integrity, 
which has marked the character of any distinguished 



ORIGINAL SIN. 179 
Executive of U. S. Terms guilty and innocent used differently. 

executive officer; nor, on the other hand, has he ever 
thought of being charged individually, or of having 
his children charged individually, with the weakness, 
or wickedness of a bad executive officer. He, and 
his children, and his neighbors, and their children, feel 
and acknowledge, that they are personally and deeply 
involved in the consequences of the official acts of 
these men, whether these consequences are of a ben- 
eficial or a hurtful tendency; but, at the same time, 
individual and personal merit and demerit, and indi- 
vidual and personal responsibility, are clearly under- 
stood, and never, for a moment, merged in social and 
representative transactions % 

' From a view of the above facts it follows — 
' 4. That the terms guilty and innocent, must with 
every thinking man, be used in a different sense, when 
they are applied to responsibilities incurred by the 
conduct of another, from that in which they are used 
when they are applied to personal conduct. In the 
former application, guilty can only mean liability to 
suffer punishment, and innocent to be not liable. But 
in the latter application, they mean, having violated, 
or having not violated, some moral or positive com- 
mandment. In the one case, the terms apply to a 
personal act, and to personal character; but in the 
other, they only mark the nature and the consequences 
of a certain act or acts, as these consequences are felt 
by another person. 

' 5. In every case of social liability, unity is recog- 
nized. The individuals concerned may be millions, or 
only two, and they may be in every other respect 



180 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



The principle applied to the relation of Adam to his posterity. 

and bearing, distinct and separate; but in the particu- 
lar case in which liability applies, they are in law, 
only one moral person. 

'The father and son, the ancestor, and the descen- 
dant, have only one common nature, or one common 
right. In commercial transactions, the company is 
(me, though composed of many individuals; and the 
nation, acting by the constituted authorities, with all 
hex* other varieties, and differences, while a nation, 
continues one and indivisible.' 

And here let me say, that this principle is recog- 
nized in the relation of Adam to his posterity, and of 
theirs to him, so that the effects in penal evil, while 
they blasted him, blasted them also. 

There is, in my apprehension, something of this 
constitutional social liability pervading the whole 
moral universe, and inseparable from the nature of 
mind and moral government, and the effects of temp- 
tation, character, and example. It is probable, that 
rational beings, constituted as they are, cannot be 
brought together, so that the action of one shall not 
in some degree affect the character of others. Wheth- 
er it was a positive appointment merely, or whether 
it was an inevitable effect flowing from the nature of 
things, or which is more probable, the united result 
of both; such was the constitution established by God, 
between Adam and his seed; so that if Adam should 
stand, all his children would retain their integrity; 
but if he should fall, they would fall with him. And 
we may well apply to the fall of our first parents the 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



I8L 



Adam the federal head — imputation — personal identity. 

affecting language of Mark Anthony over Caesar's 
body: 

4 what a fall was there my countrymen! 
Then you, and I, and all of us fell down.' 

The constitution was equally certain both ways; 
and in this respect it was just and equal. If, then, it 
be asked, whether I hold that Adam was the. federal 
head of his posterity? I answer, certainly he was; 
because that which he did, decided what was to be 
the character and conduct of all his posterity. If the 
inquiry is made, whether I admit the imputation of 
Adam's sin? If imputation be understood to mean, 
that Adam's posterity were present in him, and thus 
sinned in him, I answer, No; and Dr. Wilson answers, 
No. And here we are agreed. For if mankind were 
present in Adam, and in that sense sinned in him, 
who does not see that their sin was actual, not origi- 
nal? personal, and not derived, or transmitted, or 
propagated? 

Again, if by original sin be meant, that iVdam's 
personal qualities were transferred to his posterity, 
(a theory which like the other had once its day,) I 
reply, that I do not and cannot believe any such 
thing; neither does Dr. Wilson believe it. And here 
let me say, that all the alarm and all the odium which 
has been excited in relation to the divines of New 
England, have arisen from two things: their opposi- 
tion to the notion of personal identity with Adam; 
and their denial of the transfer of his moral qualities 
to his posterity. But neither of these things is involv- 
ed in the charges preferred against me by Dr. Wilson. 

16* 



182 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



True doctrine of original sin. Meaning of the word guilt. 

What, then, is the true doctrine of original sin? It 
is the obnoxiousness of Adam's posterity to the penal 
consequences of his transgression; to all that came in 
that stream of evils which his offence let in upon the 
world. The same change of constitution, of nature 
and character, which was wrought in him by his 
transgression, appears in them through all their gen- 
erations. This liability, this exposedness to punish- 
ment is in the Confession called 'Guilt;' but that 
word, as then used, conveyed theologically, a differ- 
ent meaning from what is now usually attached to 
the term. By guilt, we now understand the desert 
of punishment for personal sin; but this is not the 
sense of the word in the Confession of Faith; there 
it means liability to penal evil in consequence of 
Adam's sin. This was another of the spots where I 
stumbled once at the language of the Confession. I 
could not consent to the punishment in my person 
of the guilt of Adam's sin as if it were my own. To 
that I do not now consent. That, I now believe the 
Confession of Faith does not teach; but I cordially 
receive .it as teaching that Adam was our represen- 
tative, and that on his breaking God's righteous cov- 
enant with him as such, the curse, which fell like a 
thunder bolt and struck the offender, struck with 
him all his posterity, struck all the animal world, 
struck the ground on which he stood, and the whole 
world in which he dwelt. 

6 Earth felt the wound.' 

This social liability is illustrated in the fall of an- 
gels. The influence of one master spirit drew away 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



183 



Consequences of Adam's sin. 

(as it would seem from some passages in Scripture) 
one third part of the heavenly host. Let sedition and 
revolt take place in a nation; who gets it up? does 
the entire mass of the nation rise spontaneously and 
simultaneously by one common impulse? No, Some 
leading mind first fires the train; and though one half 
the population may ultimately perish under the reac- 
tion of the government, their death is to be traced up 
to one master spirit as the mover and promoter of 
the whole commotion. Let us never forget the max- 
im — it is worthy to be written in letters of gold, ' in- 
dividual and representative responsibility are always 
to be kept distinct.' I adopt this language of Dr. 
Bishop, and lay it in as an exposition of my own 
views, with respect to the character of Adam, to guilt 
as imputed, and to punishment as the consequence 
of our social relations. I have always adopted the 
language of Edwards, as correctly stating the truth 
on this subject. 

; In consequence of Adam's sin, all mankind do 
constantly, in all ages, without fail in any one in- 
stance, run into the moral evil, which is, in effect, 
their own utter and eternal perdition, and a total 
privation of God's favor, and suffering of his ven- 
geance and wrath.' 

So that the real doctrine is not that Adam's posteri- 
ty were one in personal identity, or personally guilty, 
by a transfer of sinful moral qualities or actions; but 
simply that a part of the curse of the law fell on the 
posterity of Adam, as really as on himself; and the 
punishment was the loss of original righteousness, 



184 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Change wrought in the constitution of human nature by the fall. 

which would have been their inheritance had Adam 
obeyed, and that change of the constitution of human 
nature, from which results the certainty of entire ac- 
tual sin. Now what the particular change was, which 
furnished the ground of this absolute certainty, that 
all mankind would run into sin, I do not profess to 
understand. Paul, in the fifth chapter to the Romans, 
states the facts of the case, in the imputation of a 
nature spoiled, and under such an effectual bias, that 
as soon as the mind acts, it acts wrong. This is all 
that I can say touching original sin. All is confusion 
and darkness beyond this. I have no light and pre- 
tend to no knowledge. And surely there is no heresy 
in ignorance. I always believed in original sin, and that 
Adam was the federal head of his posterity, and al- 
though I have not used generally that particular phrase, 
I believe as much in the truth it is intended to convey, 
as any man in the church. I believe that God made a 
covenant with Adam ; that the effects of his fall reached 
all his posterity and produced in them such a change, 
that the human mind which before willed right, thence 
forward was sure to will wrong: that in consequence 
of the change which took place in Adam himself, the 
bias to holiness, which, had Adam stood, would have 
been the blessed inheritance of all his children, was 
utterly lost, so that they now inherit a corrupt na- 
ture. I have always called it so. I have expressly 
denominated it a depraved nature. I believe they 
inherit this not as actual personal sin — that it comes 
upon them, not as a punishment of their personal 
sin, but as a political evil would come upon the 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



185 



Imputation — Views of Turretin. 

people of the United States from the evil conduct of 
their chief magistrate. In a word, that we share the 
character of our progenitor, and all the deplorable 
effects of his transgression. 

The following additional quotations will show that 
these views are the received doctrines of the church: 

' Turretin, 5 as quoted by Hodge on Romans, '(Theol. 
Elench. Quaest. IX. p. 678,) says: " Imputation is 
either of something foreign to us, or of something 
properly our own. Sometimes that is imputed to us 
which is personally ours; in which sense God imputes 
to sinners their transgressions. Sometimes that is 
imputed which is without us, and not performed by 
ourselves; thus the righteousness of Christ is said 
to be imputed to us, and our sins are imputed to him, 
although he has neither sin in himself, nor we righte- 
ousness. Here we speak of the latter kind of impu- 
tation, not of the former, because we are treating of 
a sin committed by Adam, not by us." The ground 
of this imputation is the union between Adam and 
his posterity. This union is not a mysterious identity 
of person, but, 1. " Natural, as he is the father, and 
we are the children. 2. Political and forensic, as he 
was the representative head and chief of the whole 
human race. The foundation, therefore, of imputa- 
tion is not only the natural connection which exists 
between us and Adam, since, in that case, all his sins 
might be imputed to us, but mainly the moral and 
federal, in virtue of which God entered into covenant 
with him as our head. 55 Again, " We are constituted 
sinners in Adam in the same way in which we are 
constituted righteous in Christ. 55 5 



186 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Imputation— Views of Tuckney, Owen. 

' Tuckney (Praelectiones, p. 234:) " We are count- 
ed righteous through Christ in the same manner that 
we are counted guilty through Adam. The latter is 
by imputation, therefore, also the former." "We are 
not so foolish or blasphemous as to say, or even to 
think, that the imputed righteousness of Christ makes 
us formally and subjectively righteous." ' 

; Owen (in his work on Justification, p. 236,) says: 
"Things which are not our own originally, inherently, 
may yet be imputed to us, ex justitia, by the rule of 
righteousness. And this may be done upon a double 
relation unto those whose they are, 1. Federal. 
2. Natural. Things done by one may be imputed 
unto others, propter relationem foederalem, because 
of a covenant relation between them. So the sin of 
Adam was imputed to all his posterity. And the 
ground hereof is, that we stood in the same covenant 
with him who was our head and representative." 
On p. 242, he says, " This imputation (of Christ's 
righteousness) is not the transmission or transfusion 
of the righteousness of another into them which are 
to be justified, that they should become perfectly 
and inherently righteous thereby. For it is impos- 
sible that the righteousness of one should be trans- 
fused into another, to become his subjectively and 
inherently." Again, p. 307 : " As we are made guilty 
by Adam's actual sin, which is not inherent in us, 
but only imputed to us; so are we made righteous by 
the righteousness of Christ, which is not inherent in 
us, but only imputed to us." On page 468, he says: 
" Nothing is intended by the imputation of sin unto 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



187 



Imputation — Views of Knapp, Zachariae, Bretschneider. 

any, but the rendering them justly obnoxious unto the 
punishment due unto that sin. As the not imputing 
of sin is the freeing of men from being subject or lia- 
ble to punishment." It is one of his standing decla- 
rations, " To be alienae culpae reus, (i. e, to be guilty of 
another's crime) makes no man a sinner." 5 

; Knapp (in his lectures on theology, sect. 76) says, 
in stating what the doctrine of imputation is, " God's 
imputing the sin of our first parents to their descend- 
ants amounts to this: God punishes the descendants 
on account of the sin of their first parents." This 
he gives as a mere historical statement of the nature 
of the doctrine, and the form in which its advocates 
maintained it.' 

; Zachariae (Bib. Theologie, Vol. II. p. 394, says: 
" If God allows the punishment which Adam incurred 
to come on all his descendants, he imputes his sin to 
them all. And in this sense Paul maintains that the 
sin of Adam is imputed to all, because the punishment 
of the one offence of Adam has come upon all." ' 

6 Bretschneider, when stating the doctrine of the 
reformers, as presented in the various creeds pub- 
lished under their authority, says, that they regarded 
justification, which includes the idea of imputation, 
as a forensic or judicial act of God, by which the rela- 
tion of man to God, and not the man himself was 
changed. And imputation of righteousness they des- 
cribed as " That judgment of God, according to which 
he treats us as though we had not sinned but .had 
fulfilled the law, or as though the righteousness of 
Christ was ours." This view of justification they 



188 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Imputation — Views of Professors of Princeton Seminary. 

constantly maintained in opposition to the Papists, 
who regarded it as a moral change consisting in what 
they called the infusion of righteousness.' 

I shall now show that this is the view entertained 
by the professors of the Princeton Seminary. 

' What we deny, therefore, is, first, that this doc- 
trine involves any mysterious union with Adam, any 
confusion of our identity with his, so that his act was 
properly and personally our act; and secondly, that 
the moral turpitude of that sin was transferred from 
him to us; we deny the possibility of any such trans- 
fer. These are the two ideas which the Spectator 
and others consider as necessarily involved in the 
doctrine of imputation, and for rejecting which they 
represent us as having abandoned the old doctrine on 
the subject.' 

4 The words guilt and punishment are those partic- 
ularly referred to. The former we had defined to 
be liability or exposedness to punishment. We did 
not mean to say that the word never included the 
idea of moral turpitude or criminality. We were 
speaking of its theological usage. It is very possible 
that a word may have one sense in common life, and 
another somewhat modified in particular sciences.' 

' Punishment according to our views, is an evil 
inflicted on a person, in the execution of a judicial 
sentence, on account of sin. That the word is used 
in this sense, for evils thus inflicted on one person 
for the offence of another, cannot be denied. It 
would be easy to fill a volume with examples of this 
usage.' Biblical Repertory, pp. 346, 440, 441. 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



189 



Imputation — Views of Hodge. 

Hodge on Romans : ' The doctrine of imputation 
is clearly taught in this passage. This doctrine does 
not include the idea of a mysterious identity of Adam 
and his race; nor that of a transfer of the mora] tur- 
pitude of his sin to his descendants. It does not teach 
that his offence was personally or properly the sin 
of all men, or that his act was, in any mysterious 
sense, the act of his posterity. Neither does it imply, 
) in reference to the righteousness of Christ, that his 
righteousness becomes personally and inherently 
ours, or that his moral excellence is in any way trans- 
ferred from him to believers. The sin of Adam, 
therefore, is no ground to us of remorse; and the 
righteousness of Christ is no ground of self-compla- 
cency in those to whom it is imputed. This doctrine 
merely teaches, that in virtue of the union, represen- 
tative and natural, between Adam and his posterity, 
his sin is the ground of their condemnation, that is, 
of their subjection to penal evils; and that in virtue 
of the union between Christ and his people, his right- 
eousness is the ground of their justification. 5 p. 221. 

' Whatever evil the scriptures represent as coming 
upon us on account of Adam, they regard as penal; 
they call it death, which is the general term by which 
any penal evil is expressed. 

6 It is not however the doctrine of the scriptures, 
nor of the reformed churches, nor of our standards, 
that the corruption of nature of which they speak, is 
any depravation of the soul, or an essential attribute, 
or the infusion of any positive evil. " Original sin," 
as the confessions of the reformers maintain, " is not 

17 



190 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Imputation — General Assembly in case of Mr. Balch. 

the substance of man, neither his soul nor body ; nor 
is it any thing infused into his nature by Satan, as 
poison is mixed with wine; it is not an essential attri- 
bute, but an accident, i. e. something which does not 
exist of itself, an incidental quality, &c." Bret- 
schneider, Vol. II. p. 30. These confessions teach 
that original righteousness, as a punishment of Adam's 
sin, was lost, and by that defect the tendency *to sin, 
or corrupt disposition, or corruption of nature, is 
occasioned. Though they speak of original sin as 
being, first, negative, i. e. the loss of righteousness; 
and, secondly, positive, or corruption of nature; yet 
by the latter, they state, is to be understood, not the 
infusion of any thing in itself sinful, but an actual 
tendency or disposition to evil resulting from the loss 
of righteousness.' pp. 229, 230. 

6 We derive from Adam a nature destitute of any 
native tendency to the love and service of God; and 
since the soul, from its nature, is filled, as it were, 
with susceptibilities; dispositions, or tendencies to 
certain modes of acting, or to objects out of itself, if 
destitute of the governing tendency or disposition to 
holiness and God, it has, of course, a tendency to self- 
gratification and sin.' p. 231. 

I now refer to a judicial decision of the General 
Assembly, in the case of Mr. Balch. 

' The transferring of personal sin or righteousness 
has never been held by Calvinistic divines, nor by 
any person in our church as far as is known to us. 
But, with regard to his (Mr. B.'s) doctrine of original 
sin, it is to be observed, that he is erroneous in rep- 
resenting personal corruption as not derived from 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



191 



Imputation — Views of Dr. Wilson. 

Adam; making Adam's sin to be imputed to his pos- 
terity in consequence of a corrupt nature already pos- 
sessed, and derived from, we know not what; thus in 
effect setting aside the idea of Adam's being the fed- 
eral head or representative of his descendants, and 
the whole doctrine of the covenant of works.' — As- 
sembles Digest, p. 1 30. 

My next authority is Dr. Wilson himself. 

6 Let us guard here against some mistakes. The 
doctrine of a union of representation does not involve 
in it the idea of personal identity. It does not mean 
that Adam and his posterity are the same identical 
persons.. It does not mean that his act was properly 
and personally their act. Nor does it mean that the 
moral turpitude of Adam's sin was transferred to his 
descendants. The transfer of moral character makes 
no part of the doctrine of imputation.' 

And now, according to the just and true intent of 
the terms, as indicated by the established laws of ex- 
position, and confirmed by the standard writers of 
our church, acquiesced in and corroborated by her 
highest judicature, I believe and teach, that ' Adam, 
being the root of all mankind, the guilt of his sin was 
imputed, and the same death in sin, and corrupted 
nature conveyed to all his posterity, descending from 
him by ordinary generation:' that from ; this original 
corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disa- 
bled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly in- 
clined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions; 
and that the covenant being made with Adam, not 
only for himself but for his posterity, all mankind 
descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned 



192 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



Infants the subjects of original sin. 

in him and fell with him in his first transgression that 
' the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, 
consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of 
original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole 
nature, which is commonly called original sin, to- 
gether with all actual transgressions which proceed 
from it; and that by the fall of our first parents 6 all 
mankind lost communion with God, are under his 
wrath and curse, and so made liable to all the mise- 
ries of this life, to death itself, and to the pains of 
hell forever.' 

I believe also, and always have believed and taught, 
that infants are the subjects of original sin, and as 
distinguished from actual sin, consisting in the ' influ- 
ence of a prevailing effectual tendency in their na- 
ture' to actual sin; and that on account of this preva- 
lent tendency, it is, in the Bible, the Confession, and 
the common language of men, justly denominated a 
depraved nature; and that being thus depraved, and 
considered in their social liabilities as one with Adam, 
they no more than adults could be saved without an 
atonement and the special influence of the Holy 
Spirit in regeneration, to overcome and remove this 
bias to evil of original corruption, and secure the un- 
perverted exercise of their voluntary powers in spir- 
itual obedience, and ultimately be prepared for per- 
fect conformity to the will of God in heaven. I 
scarce ever attended the funeral of an infant without 
an express recognition of these views upon infant 
depravity, and the atonement and regeneration as 
the only ground of hope that they are saved. 

I close this discussion in respect to original sin, 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



193 



Epitome of the author's views on original sin. 

with the following concise epitome of my own views,' 
which, as I understand and believe, have been and 
are the received doctrines of the church of God, in 
every age: 

1. Original sin is the effect of Adam's sin upon the 
constitution of his race, in consequence of his being 
their federal head and representative by a divide ap- 
pointment or covenant, 

2. It does* not consist in the sinfulness of matter, 
according to the Gnostics, or in the sinfulness of the 
soul's essence, according to the Manicheans: but 

3. It consists in the perversion of those constitu- 
tional powers and susceptibilities, which in Adam-be- 
fore the fall eventuated in actual and perfect obedi- 
ence, and which in their perverted condition by the 
fall, eventuate in actual and total depravity. 

4. It is in its nature involuntary; and yet, though 
certain and 'universal in its influence to pervert the 
will and affections, does neither force the will, nor by 
an absolute necessity of nature determine it to evil, 
or impair obligation, or excuse actual sin. It de- 
scends from Adam, by natural generation, through 
all the race. 

It is a bias or tendency of nature to actual sin, 
which baffles all motives and all influence short of 
Omnipotence, to prevent its eventuation in total, act- 
ual depravity, or to restore the perverted will and. 
affections to holy obedience. 

It is this bias to evil, the effect of the fall, which, 
though impaired by regeneration, is not annihilated, 
but remains in the regenerate, which, combined with 
17* 



194 



ORIGINAL SIN. 



No evidence to sustain the charge of heresy. 

the habits of actual sin, constitutes the law in the mem- 
bers warring against the law of the mind, preventing, 
until the soul at death is made meet for heaven, the un- 
biased and unperverted exercise of the will and affec- 
tions, in perfect accordance with the moral law. 

It is denominated by Edwards, and justly, an ex- 
ceedingly evil and depraved nature, as being in all its 
tendencies and all its actual results, adverse to the 
law; and on the ground of our alliance with Adam, 
our federal head, and our social liability, deserves 
God's wrath and curse, in all that comes to pass in 
perverted constitution, choice and character, includ- 
ing the evils of the life that now is, death itself, and 
the pains of hell forever. 

Such, on the subject of original sin, are the views 
which I have always held and taught since I have 
been in the ministry; nor has any evidence been pro- 
duced, that I have ever at any time believed or taught 
the contrary. The entire evidence relied on, is a mis- 
apprehension and misinterpretation of the passage ad- 
duced from my sermon ; and there is now no evidence, 
not a syllable of evidence, to sustain the charge. Should 
it be inquired, why I did not explain my views on 
original sin, and the misconceptions of my discourse, 
to Dr. Wilson, as I have now done, and save our- 
selves and the church the affliction and annoyance 
of such a controversy; I answer, that I often assured 
Dr. Wilson that he misunderstood my views and 
communications on that subject, and requested him, 
respectfully and earnestly, three or four times, to 
permit me to make the requisite explanations, and 
was as often refused. 



TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 



On this subject my doctrine, and the evidence 
relied on for its support, are sufficiently manifest in 
the epitome which I have given of my sermon on the 
Native Character of Man. 

It includes the absence of all holiness — the want 
of conformity unto, and the actual transgression of, 
the law of God. 

It is universal — there being not a mere man of all 
the millions of Adam's posterity that hath lived and 
not sinned. 

It is entire — -every imagination of the thoughts of 
the heart being evil only — there being none that do 
good, no not one. 

It is positive — as including the actual preference of 
the creature to the Creator, which is enmity against 
God. 

It is voluntary — though occasioned by original sin, 
the will is not forced, nor by any necessity deter- 
mined to good or evil. But though voluntary, with 
the possibility of turning to God, it is spontaneously 
immutable to any motive, but the word of God made 
effectual by his Spirit. 

It was this view of total depravity excluding all 



196 



TOTAL DEPRAVITY. 



Total depravity fully taught and preached by the author. 

native virtue from the heart, motives, words, and 
deeds of man, which produced the reaction that 
occasioned the sermon on the native character of 
man. 

I taught with the Confession, that ; works done by 
unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, 
they may be things which God commands, and of 
good use both to themselves and others; yet because 
they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor 
are done in a right manner, according to the word; 
nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are there- 
fore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man 
meet to receive grace from God. And yet their 
neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto 
God.' 

It is a doctrine which, in various forms I have ex- 
plained, and proved, and preached, and applied, more 
than any other, as being especially the one by which 
the commandment comes and sin revives. 



REGENERATION— OR EFFECTUAL 
CALLING. 



In respect to this doctrine I am not apprised, pre- 
cisely, what is the form of error which I am supposed 
to hold. But if it be the Pelagian, as I conclude from 
the analogy of my supposed heresy, on the subject of 
original sin, it must be that 1 deny that regeneration 
is a radical change of character, and only an improve- 
ment of the good principles of our nature by moral 
culture. That it is in any special sense a work of 
God, and only as he has provided the instruction and 
motives which, by their natural influence and human 
endeavor, produce religion — and that, of course, re- 
generation is a gradual and not an instantaneous 
change. 

To all such apprehensions I reply, that nothing can 
be more contrary to the entire course of my faith and 
teaching on the subject, as all the churches know 
which have been successively under my pastoral 
care, and all men who have attended my ministry 
with sufficient constancy, to receive the image and 
body of my preaching. There is no subject beside 
the kindred one of total depravity, which I have 
dwelt upon with such copiousness of explanation, 



198 



REGENERATION. 



Topics embraced in the doctrine. 

proofs, and earnest application — line upon line — in 
season and out of season, as on the subject of regene- 
ration — insomuch, that my stated hearers would as 
soon think of suspecting me of atheism as of Pelagi- 
anism, on the subject of regeneration. 

That I have not been fully understood on a single 
point, I perceive; but that I shall be understood, and 
understood as teaching the doctrine in accordance 
with the Bible, and the Confession, and the generally 
received opinion of the orthodox church, I have a 
comfortable hope. 

I am aware that a man's simple professions, when 
under suspicion of heresy, are but a poor defence 
against the amplifications of imagination and fear, 
especially when divisions, and tumults, and swellings 
exist — there may be for a season little to choose be- 
tween being suspected of heresy, and being guilty of 
it. Instead, therefore, of making mere declarations 
of my belief, I shall state and illustrate my views on 
the several topics belonging to the subject of regen- 
eration, as I have been accustomed to state them in 
my discourses from the pulpit, and in my lectures to 
the students under my care. These topics are — 

1. The nature; 

% The efficient cause; 

3. The effectual means; and 

4. The necessity of regeneration. 

1. The nature of regeneration. — By this I mean 
the nature of the change which is produced in the 
subject by the Spirit of God. This, according to my 
understanding of the Bible, is correctly disclosed in 



REGENERATION. 



199 



Nature of the change effected in regeneration. 

the doctrine of effectual calling as taught in the Con- 
fession of Faith and Catechisms, as including ; the 
enlightening of the minds of men spiritually and sav- 
ingly to understand the things of God, taking away 
their heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh — re- 
newing their wills and determining them to that which 
is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ 
— yet so as they come freely, being made willing by 
his grace — in his accepted time, inviting and drawing 
them to Jesus Christ by his word and spirit — so as 
they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby 
made willing and able truly to answer his call, and to 
accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed 
therein;' or as the Shorter Catechism teaches, more 
concisely and with no less correctness: 

4 Effectual calling is the work of God's Spirit, 
whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, en- 
lightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and 
renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us 
to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered us in the gos- 
pel.' 

The substance of what is taught by this various 
phraseology is, that a change is effected in regenera- 
tion in respect to man's chief end^ in turning from the 
supreme love of self, to the supreme love of God — 
from gratifying and exalting self, to gratifying and 
exalting God — a giving up and turning from the 
world in all its pomp and vanities as the chief good, 
and returning to God as the chosen portion of the 
soul — withdrawing the affections from things below, 
and setting them on things above — ceasing to lay up 



200 



REGENERATION. 



The Holy Spirit the author of regeneration. 

our treasure on earth, and laying it up in heaven — 
and so grieving for and hating our past sins, as that 
we turn from them all to God, purposing and endeav- 
oring to walk with God in all the ways of new obe- 
dience. 

This, it will not, I think, be doubted, comprehends 
correctly the moral change which takes place in re- 
generation. 

The author or efficient cause of regeneration 
is God. By efficient cause I mean that power with- 
out which all other influence is vain, and by which 
means otherwise impotent are made effectual. The 
power then, which in all cases is the immediate ante- 
cedent and effectual cause of regeneration, is the spe- 
cial influence of the Holy Spirit. It is called the 
Holy Spirit, not by way of any preeminent personal 
excellence, but as the divine agent to w T hom is com- 
mitted the work of commencing and perfecting holi- 
ness in the hearts of men. 

That God is the efficient cause of regeneration, is 
plainly taught in the text, and throughout the Bible, 
in the various forms of metaphor, direct testimony, 
and multiplied implications. Is moral pollution in 
the way — ; I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
ye shall be clean.' Is stupidity and insensibility the 
impediment to be removed — ' I will take away the 
stony heart and give a heart of flesh.' Is the condi- 
tion of man represented by the battle field, a capa- 
cious valley whitened with bones— it is God who 
says unto these bones, ; Behold I will cause breath 
to enter into you, and ye shall live.' Is it the help- 



REGENERATION. 



201 



Power of God in regeneration, supernatural. 

lessness of infancy abandoned in the open field, with 
no eye to pity or arm to save — it is God who ' passes 
by and bids us live.' Is it darkness which impedes 
our salvation — it is 6 God who commanded the light 
to shine out of darkness, who shines in our hearts.' 
Is death the calamity, a resurrection is the remedy — 
; You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses 
and sins, and raised us up to sit together in heavenly 
places in Christ.' Is it the annihilation of spiritual 
life, regeneration is a new creation — 5 created anew 
in Christ Jesus unto good works.' Is it the old man 
who makes resistance to the claims of God — the re- 
generated are said to be 6 born again, not of blood,' 
i. e. not by natural descent, 6 nor of the will of the 
flesh,' the striving and efforts of sinners to save them- 
selves, ' nor of the will of man,' the efforts of men to 
save their fellow men, ; but of God; whosoever loveth 
is born of god.' 

The power of God concerned in regeneration is 
supernatural. It is so, 1. as compared with the 
power of any created agent, man or angel. 

2. It is supernatural, as above the power of any 
law of nature, or natural efficacy of truth or motive, 
in the ordinary operation of cause and effect, na- 
tural or moral. 

3. It is supernatural, as distinguished from the 
stated operations of divine power, which are con- 
cerned in upholding all things and guiding them in the 
stated order of cause and effect, to their results, as 
earth, and air, and rain, and sunshine produce vege- 
tation, and cause harvests to wave in the field. 

18 



202 



REGENERATION. 



Redemption limited by unerring wisdom, not by impotency. 

4. It is supernatural, as being an interposition 
to accomplish unfailingly a change in the will and 
affections of men, which never takes place without 
it. And — 

5. It is supernatural, as it is an act of God's al- 
mighty power — as really so as the creation of worlds, 
or the resurrection of the dead. 

The question has been started, whether God is able 
to regenerate any more than he does. Unquestion- 
ably so far as sufficient pow T er is concerned, he is able 
to subdue all things to himself. The limitation in 
respect to the application of redemption, is not one 
of impotency, but a limitation of the unerring wisdom 
and infinite benevolence of God — the limitation of 
doing always, and only in the administration of grace 
that which seemeth good in his sight, and is right and 
best. The discriminations of his justice and grace are 
voluntary. So far as his power is concerned, he is as 
able to subdue the wills of rebels as to control the ele- 
ments. In his moral kingdom, he is as truly the 
Lord God omnipotent, working all things according to 
the counsel of his will, as he is in the government 
of the natural universe. He has placed nothing 
which he has made beyond the reach of his power; 
and he has made nothing which he cannot and does 
not govern, according to the counsel of his own will. 
The power of God in regeneration is represented as 
among the greatest displays of his omnipotence ever 
made, or to be made, in the history of the universe. 
When this fair creation rose fresh in beauty from the 
hand of God, the morning stars sang together, and all 



REGENERATION. 



203 



Regeneration instantaneous, not progressive. 

the sons of God shouted for joy; but sweeter songs 
will celebrate,and louder shouts attend the consumma- 
tion of redemption, by the power of God's Spirit; and 
such brighter glories of God, and higher illustrations 
of his power, will be manifested to principalities and 
powers by the church, as will cause the light of his 
glory in physical creation to go out and be forgotten, 
as the stars fade and are lost amid the splendors of 
the sun. It is the united glory of God's power and 
goodness, in redemption, and not the wonders of phy- 
sical creation, which inspire and perpetuate for ever 
around his throne, the voice of praise, as the sound of 
many waters and mighty thunderings, to Him who 
loved us, and died for us, and washed us in his blood, 
and made us kings and priests unto God. 

The effect of this divine interposition is instanta- 
neous — in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. It 
must be instantaneous from the nature of the case. 
If man is an idolater, there must be a time when he 
gives the idol up for God; if an enemy, there must be 
a time when he becomes reconciled; if without holy 
love, there must be a time when it begins to warm 
the heart. 

The graces of the Spirit admit not of a progressive 
creation — love or enmity, penitence or impenitence, 
faith or unbelief, are the only positive conditions of 
the human mind. There is no state between them. 
There is and can be no such thing as love, or repen- 
tance, or faith, half formed, and progressive to a 
/completion. 

There are persons, however, of some seriousness, 



204 



REGENERATION. 



Progressive regeneration fallacious and dangerous. 

who seem desirous to approximate to evangelical 
belief on the subject of regeneration — who admit the 
necessity of a change in human character, in some 
degree like that which we have described, only it is 
not wholly new, but the result of the progressive cul- 
ture of the human powers by divine aid; and since 
on both sides, we believe, they say, in the necessity 
holiness, what difference does it make whether it 
comes from old principles or new, or whether the 
work is instantaneous or progressive. 

Whatever might be thought beforehand, the differ- 
ence in experience between a belief in instantaneous or 
progressive regeneration, is manifest and great. The 
latter assumes fallacious and dangerous views of hu- 
man nature, as including some seed of virtue, or prin- 
ciple of light and life, which needs only cultivation to 
bring it up to the maturity of holiness; is associated 
also with false views of holiness, as consisting in 
some nondescript, mystical goodness, which grows 
imperceptibly under culture, as the harvest rises 
under rain and sunshine. 

It legitimates as virtues, efficacious to save, all 
those grounds of fallacious hope which I have already 
named — quelling fear, preventing a sense of sin, and 
creating hope built upon the sand. 

It produces likewise and fosters, and makes obsti- 
nate, a self-righteous and self-complacent, self-justify- 
ing spirit, while it creates hostility to the fundamen- 
tal doctrines of the gospel — the entire depravity of 
man, the necessity of a radical change of character, 
and acquiescence in the discriminations of divine 



REGENERATION. 



205 



Effectual means of regeneration, the word of God. 

justice and mercy, in the punishment or renovation 
and pardon of sinful men. 

And, worst of all, its tendency on communities, 
is to cause prejudice and virulent hostility not only 
against the doctrines of the Bible, but against revela- 
tion itself, and to produce ultimately scepticism and 
rank infidelity, and scoffing at the Bible and the work 
of the Spirit* 

The effectual means of regeneration is the 
word of god. By effectual means, I understand the 
means which God employs and renders efficient in 
producing the change. That he accomplishes the 
change by his mighty power associated with means, 
is the unequivocal testimony of the Bible and the 
Confession of Faith. Chosen to salvation, the Elect 
of God are, through sanctification of the Spirit and 
belief of the truth whereunto he called them by the 
GospelS The Gospel is denominated ' the power of 
God and the wisdom of God unto salvation.' 4 The 
law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.' ' The 
word of God is quick and powerful.' ' The seed is 
the word.' ; Being born again, not of corruptible 
seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God; — and 
this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto 
you.' ' Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall 
make you free.' ; Sanctify them through thy truth. 
Thy word is truth.' 6 Seeing ye have purified your 
souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit.' ' They 
shall be taught of God.' ' I drew them with the 
cords of love.' 4 No man can come unto me, except 
the Father which hath sent me draw him.' 'Every 

18* 



206 



REGENERATION. 



Efficiency of God and instrumentality of his word united. 

one, therefore, which hath heard and learned of the 
Father, cometh unto me.' 

This is only a small portion of the phraseology 
of the Bible which associates God's efficiency with 
his word, in regeneration. That such instrumental- 
ity should, in direct terms, and by every variety of 
metaphor, be associated with the power of God in 
regeneration, if in fact no such instrumentality is 
employed, cannot be assumed without shaking the 
foundation of all confidence in the teaching of the 
Bible. Exposition may as well be abandoned; for 
nothing, in that case, can be taught by language r 
which theory and imagination might not explain 
away. We might as well deny that God is the 
efficient cause, as that truth is the ; effectual means' of 
regeneration. But there is no necessity for deny- 
ing either, and no authority for stripping either class 
of texts of their natural and obvious import, to mean 
nothing. What would be thought of the expositor 
who should insist, that because men are begotten 
again by the word, therefore the power of God is not 
concerned in regeneration, and that it is all a matter 
of moral suasion and human endeavor? But why 
should the efficiency of God defraud the word of its 
alledged instrumentality, or the instrumentality of the 
word exclude the power of God? Is the union of both 
impossible? It cannot be impossible, because, un- 
questionably, in the government of the natural world, 
God's almightiness is associated with the instrumen- 
tality of natural causes, and may be just as possibly, 



REGENERATION. 



207 



Not revealed that God regenerates without means. 

if God pleases, in the moral world, associated with 
the instrumentality of moral causes. 

To what purpose are laws and institutions and 
the preaching of the gospel, if God does nothing and 
can do nothing by their instrumentality? Are laws 
and institutions, and the ministry of reconciliation, 
only the empty attendant symbols of God's power? 
Does it correspond with the usage of revealed lan- 
guage, to ascribe instrumentality to the impotent 
signals and attendants of God's agency? Is it ever 
said that God inflicted the plagues of Egypt by Aa- 
ron's rod, or threw down the walls of Jericho by rams' 
horns? The analogy of scriptural use forbids the 
ascription of instrumental agency to the mere sym- 
bols of the presence and power of God. Nor have 
I been able to find any declaration in the Bible, that 
God regenerates by his own almighty power, without 
any instrumental agency. The scriptures teach 
abundantly, that God is the author of regeneration, 
and that it is the instantaneous effect of his omnipo- 
tence applied with a direct design to produce it; 
but the fact that he does it, and that it is an illustri- 
ous act of omnipotence, does not decide how he 
does it, much less that he does it by power only, 
without means; while all the passages which speak 
of the instrumentality of the word, prove that he 
does not regenerate by omnipotence alone, but by 
power associated with the reading and especially the 
preaching of the word. 

With this view of the subject correspond all 
the implications of the Bible. If the gospel pos- 



208 



REGENERATION. 



The word and Spirit united in effectual calling. 

sesses no adaptation to secure in any way, as a 
means in the hand of God, the renovation of the 
heart, whence the transcendant excellence and im- 
portance attached to it, and the high perniciousness 
and criminality of error, and why is the mighty pow- 
er of God manifest only in alliance with revelation? 
Is the truth of God a mere arbitrary association of 
particular opinions with particular acts of God's pow- 
er? It cannot be. The testimony of the Bible is 
express the other way. 

There is, however, in our church, no need of con- 
troversy on the subject, and no room for it. 

It is not claimed that God regenerates by the truth 
without an interposition of the exceeding greatness 
of his own power — and without denying the Con- 
fession and Catechisms, it cannot be denied that, 
what is accomplished in effectual calling, is accom- 
plished by his word and Spirit. 

That God is able by his direct immediate power to 
approach the mind in every faculty, and to touch all 
the springs of action and affection, I have never 
denied or doubted. And that he is able by the direct 
interposition of his power, so to rectify the mind of 
man as disordered by the fall, as that the consequence 
would be the immediate, unpeirerted exercise of the 
will and affections in obedience, is just as evident as 
that God can create minds in such a condition that 
they will in these respects go right from the begin- 
ning — and that in this manner he does retrieve the 
consequences of the fall, in respect to those who die 
in infancy, would seem to be as evident, as that he 



REGENERATION. 



A question not of possible or impossible, but of fact. 

saves them at all. That he is able, also, if it seemed 
good in his sight, to reveal the truth and manifest 
•himself savingly to the heathen, is as plain as that 
he could reveal the same truths to holy men of old, 
und make them effectual through a written word 
and established ordinances. Nor is it denied or 
doubted, in respect to possibility, that God, if it 
seemed wisest and best under the gospel, might make 
such manifestations of himself to the souls of men, 
attended by such energy of his almighty power, as 
would call them unfailingly into his kingdom. 

The question, as we have said, is not a question of 
possible or impossible, but a question of fact, as to the 
manner in which God does actually call effectually 
sinners into his kingdom — a question of w T isdom and 
goodness in doing what is best in the best manner. 

I have no sympathy for the opinion that it depends 
on sinners whether they be regenerated or not in the 
day of his power — or that God does all he can, and 
leaves the event of submission or not to rebel man — 
and that sinners make themselves to differ, and are 
in fact the self-determining authors of their own re- 
generation. The passages quoted to prove such an 
assertion are misunderstood and perverted. 

The texts — 'What could I have done more for my 
vineyard that I have not done in it,' and 4 he could 
not do many mighty works there, because of their 
unbelief,' and other kindred passages, do not teach 
that God is ever efficaciously resisted by any sinner 
whom he attempts to subdue, or that there is any 
sinner on earth so stubborn and obstinate, that God 



REGENERATION. 



The ordinary method, not extreme cases. 

could not reconcile him if it seemed good in his sight. 
The limitation is of God's unerring wisdom — and 
the cannot the same as when it is said he cannot 
deny himself, or cannot lie, or where God himself 
says — 'though Moses and Samuel stood before me, 
yet my mind could not be towards this people.' 

The question, also, has respect not to extreme 
cases, but to the ordinary methods of his sovereign 
power in saving men; and here the Bible and Con- 
fession are express, that regeneration is accomplish- 
ed by the word and Spirit of God. 

Most assuredly it is the grammatical import and 
obvious meaning, and no doubt the true intent of our 
Confession and Catechisms, that what God accom- 
plishes in effectual calling, he accomplishes by his 
word and Spirit — effectually calls 'by his word and 
Spirif out of that state of sin and death in which 
men are by nature- By his word and Spirit enlight- 
ening their minds savingly to understand the things 
of God. By his word and Spirit taking away the 
heart of stone, and giving a heart of flesh. By his 
word and Spirit and almighty power renewing their 
wills, and determining them to that which is good. 
By his word and Spirit inviting and drawing sinners 
to Christ, yet so as they come most freely, being 
made willing by his grace. The Spirit of God maketh 
the reading and especially the preaching of the word, 
an effectual mean of convincing of sin and convert- 
ing sinners, and building them up in holiness and 
comfort through faith unto salvation.' How can 
that be an effectual mean of conversion which does 



REGENERATION. 



211 



The 4 word' embraces all God has revealed. 

nothing, and only attends the display of God's om- 
nipotence? 

Is it demanded how God can make the word effec- 
tual by his Spirit in regeneration? I am not sure 
that the Bible, or the creeds, or standard writers, 
have explained exactly how the Spirit regenerates 
by the word, or that I shall be able to do justice to 
the representations which they have made. It is 
evident, however, that by ' the word 5 and 4 the 
truth,' is meant the whole revelation which God has 
made to man: including all the truths, motives, and 
ordinances of the Bible, and all the illustrative and 
corroborating influence of his providential govern- 
ment; comprehending the being, the attributes, the 
character, and the eternal counsel and law of God — 
the fall and total depravity of man — the develop- 
ments of the Trinity, and plan of redemption by 
Jesus Christ; including his divine person, mediation, 
atonement, and the terms upon which justification and 
eternal life are offered, and the ordinances and means 
of commending these overtures of mercy to the con- 
sciences and hearts of men; including also the Spirit, 
his divine person, and work of revelation, illumina- 
tion, and restraint, awakening and convincing, con- 
verting and sanctifying sinful men, to make them 
meet for heaven; and also the mingled influence 
of majesty and condescension, justice and mercy, 
and all the promises and threatenings, and hopes and 
fears attendant upon the discriminations of grace and 
justice — of death, and judgment, and eternity, associ- 



212 



REGENERATION. 



The thing to be accomplished in regeneration. 

ated with heaven and hell, according to the characters 
formed and the deeds done in the body. 

Now, it is admitted by all orthodox creeds and 
writers, that there is a work preparatory and conse- 
quential to regeneration, which the Spirit does ac- 
complish by the instrumentality of the word. It is 
called before regeneration, common grace; and after, 
sanctification. Nor is it difficult to see the adaptation 
of the word to the requisite preparatory work. The 
thing to be accomplished in regeneration is the restor- 
ation of the vagrant will and affections from the crea- 
ture to the Creator — the turning from broken cisterns 
to God, the fountain of good. To accomplish this, 
the character and law of God need to be understood, 
the sinner's attention arrested, his sensibilities quick- 
ened, his conscience invigorated, and his sins set in 
order before him by the coming of the commandment; 
and it is easy to see how the word is powerful in its 
adaptation after regeneration, to sanctify and fit believ- 
ers for heaven. The psalmist celebrates it as 'right, 
rejoicing the heart' — ' pure, enlightening the eyes;' 
and our Saviour, in his intercessory prayer, for his 
disciples and people in all ages, prays, ' sanctify them 
through thy truth, thy word is truth.' 

The only question is, whether God, by his Spirit, 
makes the word as effectual to regenerate, as he does 
to prepare the way, and to sanctify after regenera- 
tion. And is it a thing intuitively impossible that 
God, according to the language of our Confession 
and catechisms, should be 6 pleased, in his appointed 
and accepted time, effectually to call the predestinated 



REGENERATION. 



213 



, Effectual calling by the word and Spirit. 

by his word and Spirit, out of a state of sin and death, 
in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation 
by Jesus Christ; by his word and Spirit, enlightening 
their minds spiritually and savingly, to understand the 
things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and 
giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their 
wills, and by his almighty power determining to that 
which is good, and effectually drawing them to 
Christ, yet so as they come freely, being made willing 
by his grace; in his accepted time, inviting and draw- 
ing them to Christ by his word and Spirit. The Spirit 
of God making the reading, but especially the preach- 
ing of the word an effectual mean of convincing and 
converting sinners, and of building them up in holi- 
ness and comfort, through faith unto salvation?' Our 
standards, you perceive, are unequivocal in the de- 
claration, that regeneration itself, as well as conviction 
and sanctification, is accomplished by the word and 
Spirit of God. It ascribes expressly the same instru- 
mentality to the word, in regeneration, which it as- 
cribes to it in conviction and sanctification. This, so 
far as I can judge, has been the prevalent doctrine of 
the church of God, in every age. Indeed it was one 
of the points of earnest controversy between Papist 
and Protestant, the one mistifying about the internal 
word, as a pretext for the sequestration of the Bible, 
the other asserting its instrumentality. Should the 
question be pressed, how the Spirit makes the word 
effectual in regeneration, the answer is: 

Not by the truth and motives of the word, as God 
employs natural causes to produce their effects. It 

19 



214 



REGENERATION. 



Effectual calling by the word and Spirit. 

is said expressly in our Confession, that he does not 
force the will, or determine it to good by any abso- 
lute necessity of nature, but that he doth persuade 
and enable men to embrace Jesus Christ freely of- 
fered to them in the Gospel. 

The mind is not a material substance, nor the 
means of its unperverted action natural causes; and 
to clothe the word, in the hand of the Spirit, with 
the power of a natural cause, from imagery bor- 
rowed from the natural world, is to materialize both 
the word and the soul. The heart is not literally a 
stone, nor the word of God a sword, or fire, or 
hammer, to break, or melt the stony heart. The 
meaning is that the Spirit somehow, by the word, 
both wounds and heals the soul, not as he would 
wound the body by a spear, and heal it by surgical 
application; but he does it by an instrumentality 
which may be fitly represented by such metaphori- 
cal analogies. 

The Bible contains precisely that balanced exhibi- 
tion of God — of the riches of his goodness — his majes- 
ty and his condescension — his love and his justice — 
his mercy, and his inexorable decision to punish the 
incorrigible — his long suffering and sudden vengeance 
— and so exhibits the glorious and dreadful discrimi- 
nations of his justice and his grace, as makes it as 
perfect in its adaptation when brought home to the 
mind and heart to induce submission, as the com- 
mandment when commended by the Spirit, is to 
produce conviction, or the same exhibition made real 
by divine illumination to sanctify the believer; but 



REGENERATION. 



215 



Effectual calling by the word and Spirit. 

sin has darkened the mind, and the god of this world, 
and the sinner's own deceitful heart of enmity keeps 
out this exhibition as a matter of living reality— so that 
the natural man understandeth not by his own or any 
human endeavor the things of the kingdom of God. 
But as the Spirit commends the law to the sinner's 
conscience in conviction of sin as man cannot, and sanc- 
tifies by the truth his regenerated people, so 'all those 
whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those 
only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted 
time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out 
of that state of sin and death, in which they are by 
nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; en- 
lightening their minds spiritually and savingly, to un- 
derstand the things of God, taking away their heart 
of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; re- 
newing their wills, and by his almighty power deter- 
mining them to that which is good; and effectually 
drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come 
most freely, being made willing by his grace.' It is 
all dark to the sinner, and mournful, and terrible, till 
the Spirit makes the gospel a reality instinct with life. 

Nor is it the letter — the simple naked truth as a 
mere matter of intellectual perception, which be- 
comes effectual even in the hand of God. Facts and 
propositions do not contain and exhibit the whole 
truth contained in the Bible. It is a depository of di- 
vine feeling. From which flows the copious tide 
of God's love and hatred — his compassion and his 
justice — his mercy and his wrath — the meltings of 
his heart — the terrors of his power, and the energy 



216 



REGENERATION". 



Effectual calling by the word and Spirit. 

of his will. All the reality of divine feeling is ex- 
pressed in the Bible; but the natural man understand- 
eth it not— he reads the letter only which killeth. But 
it is the Spirit which giveth life — ' the words that 
I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life, 
manifesting the truth and reality of divine feeling to 
the soul. While the sinner reads with darkened mind 
the sacred page, the Spirit makes it luminous, and 
quick, and powerful — it is as if written upon transpa- 
rencies with invisible ink — unseen andunfelt, till the 
illumination of the Spirit throws it out in letters of fire. 

Then the heavens illuminated declare the glory of 
God— and the inspired page shines with overpower- 
ing splendor. Both these united manifestations of 
the works and word of God, are celebrated in the 
19th Psalm. 

'The heavens declare the glory of God, and the 
firmament sheweth his handy-work. Day unto day 
uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth know- 
ledge. There is no speech nor language where their 
voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through 
all the earth,. and their words to the end of the world. 
In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun; which 
is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and 
rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going 
forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit 
unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the 
heat thereof. The law of the Lord is perfect, con- 
verting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, 
making wise the simple: the statutes of the Lord are 
right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the 
Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes J 



REGENERATION. 



217 



Instrumentality of the word — Augustin. 

In accordance with these views of the proper in- 
strumentality of the w r ord in regeneration, is the tes- 
timony of Augustin, as quoted by Knapp. 

' With respect to the manner in which saving 
grace operates, Augustin believed, that in the case 
of those who enjoy revelation, grace commonly acts 
by means of the w T ord, or the divine doctrine, but 
sometimes directly; because God is not confined to 
the use of means. On this point there was great 
logomachy.' Knapp's Theology, vol. II. p. 457. 

To the same purpose is the exposition by Calvin, 
of Hebrews iv. 1 2. — ' For the word of God is quick, 
and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, 
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, 
and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the 
thoughts and intents of the heart S 

; It is to be observed, that the apostle is here 
speaking of the word of God which is brought to us 
by the ministry of men. For these imaginations are 
silly and even pernicious, to wit, that the internal 
word indeed is efficacious, but that the word which 
proceeds from the mouth of man is dead and destitute 
of all effect. I confess, truly, that its efficacy does 
not proceed from the tongue of man, nor reside in 
the word itself, but that it is owing entirely to the 
Holy Spirit; nevertheless this is no objection to the 
idea that the Spirit puts forth his power in the preach- 
ed word. For God, since he does not speak by him- 
self, but by men, sedulously insists on this, lest his 
doctrine should be received contemptuously, because 
men are its ministers. Thus Paul, when he calls the 

19* 



218 



REGENERATION. 



Instrumentality of the word — Calvin. 

gospel the power of God, (Rom. i. 16.,) purposely 
dignifies his preaching with this title, because he saw 
that it had been slandered by some and despised by 
others. Moreover, when he calls the word living, 
its relation to men is to be understood, as appears 
more clearly in the second epithet; for he shows 
what this life is, when he then calls it efficacious: for 
it is the design of the apostle to show w T hat the use 
of the word is in respect to us.' The words render- 
ed living and efficacious in the above paragraph, are 
in the English version translated quick and powerful. 

The following is the comment of Calvin on Ro- 
mans x. 17. — 'So then faith cometh by hearing, and 
hearing by the word of Go dS 

' This is a remarkable passage concerning the effi- 
cacy of preaching, since it testifies that faith proceeds 
from it. He indeed confessed just before, that it ac- 
complished no good by itself: but where it pleases 
the Lord to work, this is the instrument of his power. 
God by the voice of man acts efficaciously, and by his 
ministry creates faith in us. In this manner that 
Papal phantasm of implicit faith, which seperates 
faith from the word, falls to the ground.' 

The Synod of Dort is unequivocal also in the doc- 
trine of effectual calling by the word and Spirit. 

4 What, therefore, neither the light of nature nor 
the law could do, that God performs by the power of 
the Holy Spirit, through the word, or the ministry 
of reconciliation; which is the gospel concerning the 
Messiah, by which it hath pleased God to save be- 
lievers, as well under the Old as under the New Tes- 
tament.' Scoffs Synod of Dort, p. 1 37. 



REGENERATION. 



219 



Instrumentality of the word — Synod of Dort. 

4 But in like manner, as by the fall man does not 
cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will, 
neither hath sin, which has pervaded the whole hu- 
man race, taken away the nature of the human 
species, but it hath depraved and spiritually stained 
it; so even this divine grace of regeneration does 
not act upon men like stocks and trees, nor take 
away the proprieties (or properties, proprietates) 
of his will, or violently compel it while unwilling; 
but it spiritually quickens, (or vivifies,) heals, cor- 
rects, and sweetly, and at the same time, powerfully 
inclines it: so that whereas before it was wholly gov- 
erned by the rebellion and resistance of the flesh, 
now, prompt and sincere obedience of the Spirit 
may begin to reign.' Ibid. p. 141. 

' But in the same manner as the omnipotent opera- 
tion of God, whereby he produces and supports our 
natural life, doth not exclude, but require the use of 
means, by which God in his infinite wisdom and 
goodness sees fit to exercise this his power: so this 
fore-mentioned supernatural power of God by which 
he regenerates us, in no wise excludes, or sets aside 
the use of the gospel, which the most wise God hath 
ordained as the seed of regeneration and the food of 
the soul. Wherefore, as the apostles, and those 
teachers who followed them, have piously instructed 
the people, concerning this grace of God, in order to 
his glory and to the keeping down of all pride; in the 
mean time neither have they neglected (being admon- 
ished by the holy gospel) to keep them under the 
exercise of the word, the sacraments, and discipline: 



no REGENERATION. 

Instrumentality of the word — Witsius. 

so then, be it far from us, that teachers or learners in 
the church should presume to tempt Godj by separa- 
ting those things, which God, of his own good plea- 
sure, would have most closely united together. For 
grace is conferred through admonitions, and the more 
promptly we do our duty, the more illustrious the 
benefit of God, who worketh in us, is wont to be, 
and the most rightly doth his work proceed. To 
whom alone, all the glory, both of the means and 
their beneficial fruits and efficacy, is due for everlast- 
ing. Amen.' Ibid. p. 142. 

Witsius — a standard writer in the church, says — 
6 Regeneration is that supernatural act of God where- 
by a new and divine life is infused into the elect — 
persons spiritually dead — and that from the incorrup- 
tible seed of the word of God made fruitful by the 
infinite power of the Spirit. 5 

Witherspoon — one of the best standard writers in 
our church, and whose treatise on regeneration is 
the best written and the most judicious, scriptural, 
copious, accurate, and experimental dissertation 
upon that subject in the English language, speak- 
ing of the nature of regeneration, says — 4 As, there- 
fore, the change is properly of a moral or spiritual 
nature, it seems to me properly and directly to 
consist in these two things, 1. That our supreme 
and chief end be to serve and glorify God, and that 
every other aim be subordinate to this. 2. That the 
soul rest in God as its chief happiness, and habitually 
prefer his favor to every other enjoyment. 5 p. 137. 

The following passages imply the associated influ-. 
ence of means: 



REGENERATION. 



221 



Instrumentality of the word — Witherspoon. 

' The deplorable, and naturally helpless state of 
sinners, doth not hinder exhortations to them in 
scripture; and therefore, takes not away their obli- 
gation to duty. See an address, where the strongest 
metaphors are retained, the exhortation given in these 
very terms, and the foundation of the duty plainly 
pointed out. "Wherefore he saith, awake thou that 
sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall 
give thee light." From which it is very plain, that 
the moral inability under which sinners now lie, as a 
consequence of the fall, is not of such a nature as to 
take away the guilt of sin, the propriety of exhorta- 
tions to duty, or the necessity of endeavors after 
recovery. 

; But what shall we say? Alas! the very subject 
we are now speaking of, affords a new proof of the 
blindness, prejudice, and obstinacy of sinners. They 
are self-condemned; for they do not act the same 
part in similar cases. The affairs of the present life 
are not managed in so preposterous a manner. He 
that ploughs his ground, and throws in his seed, can- 
not so much as unite one grain to the clod; nay, he is 
not able to conceive how it is done. He cannot 
carry on, nay, he cannot so much as begin one single 
step of this wonderful process toward the subsequent 
crop; the mortification of the seed, the resurrection 
of the blade, and gradual increase, till it come to per- 
fect maturity. Is it, therefore, reasonable, that he 
should say, I for my part can do nothing. It is, first 
and last, an effect of divine power and energy. And 
God can as easily raise a crop without sowing as 



222 



REGENERATION. 



Instrumentality of the word—Owen. 

with it, in a single instant, and in any place, as in a 
long time, by the mutual influence of soil and season; 
I will therefore spare myself the hardship of toil and 
labor, and wait with patience, till I see what he will 
be pleased to send. Would this be madness? Would 
it be universally reputed so ? And would it not be 
equal madness to turn the grace of God into licen- 
tiousness? Believe it, the warning is equally rea- 
sonable and equally necessary, in spiritual as in tem- 
porary things.' pp. 134, 135. 

The authority of Owen is among the best of ortho- 
dox authorities. His language is as follows: 

4 \\r e grant that in the work of regeneration, the 
Holy Spirit towards those that are adult, doth make 
use of the word, both the law and the gospel, and 
the ministry of the church, in the dispensation of it, 
as the ordinary means thereof; yea, this is ordinarily 
the whole external means that is made use of in this 
work, and an efficacy proper unto it, it is accom- 
panied withal. 5 

; The power which the Holy Ghost puts forth in 
our regeneration, is such in its acting or exercise, as 
our minds, wills, and affections, are suited to be 
wrought upon, and to be affected by it, according to 
their natures, and natural operations. • " Turn thou 
me, and I shall be turned; draw me, end I shall run 
after thee." He doth neither act in them any other- 
wise than they themselves are meet to be moved and 
move, to be acted and act, according to their own 
nature, power, and ability. He draws us with " the 
cords of a man." And the work itself is expressed by 



REGENERATION. 



223 



Instrumentality of the word — Owen. 

persuading, " God persuade Japhet;" and alluring, "I 
will allure her into the wilderness and speak com- 
fortably: 15 for as it is certainly effectual, so it carries 
no more repugnancy unto our faculties, than a pre- 
valent persuasion doth. So that he doth not, in our 
regeneration, possess the mind with any enthusiasti- 
cal impressions; nor acteth absolutely upon us as he 
did in extraordinary prophetical inspirations of old, 
where the minds and organs of the bodies of men 

WERE MERELY PASSIVE INSTRUMENTS, MOVED BY HIM 
ABOVE THEIR OWN NATURAL CAPACITY AND ACTIVITY, NOT 
ONLY AS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF WORKING, BUT AS TO THE 
MANNER OF OPERATION. 

. 'He therefore offers no violence or compulsion 
unto the will. This that faculty is not naturally 
capable to give admission unto. If it be compelled, 
it is destroyed.' Owen's Works, vol. 2, p. 371. 

Howe is equally express on this subject, he 
says — 'And whereas, therefore, in this work there 
is a communication and participation of the divine 
nature, this is signified to be his divine power. If you 
look to 2 Peter i. verses 3, 4, compared, "According 
as his divine power hath given us all things appertain- 
ing to life and godliness, through the knowledge of 
him that hath called us to glory and virtue; whereby 
are given to us exceeding great and precious pro- 
mises; that by these you might be partakers of the 
divine nature." Here is a divine nature to be com- 
municated and imparted in this great and glorious 
work. How is it to be communicated? It is true it 
must be by apt and suitable means; to wit, by the 



224 



REGENERATION. 



Instrumentality of the word — Howe. 

great and precious promises given us in the gospel. 
But it must be by the exertion too of a divine power* 
Though God do work suitably to an intelligent na- 
ture when he works upon such subjects, yet he works 
also suitably to himself, "according as his divine pow- 
er hath given us all things pertaining to life and god- 
liness," or to the godly life; in order to the ingenera- 
ting the godly life his divine power hath given us by 
the exceeding great and precious promises, a divine 
nature. The instrumentality and subserviency of 
these "exceeding great and precious promises," is 
greatly to be considered, God working herein suita- 
bly to the nature of an intelligent subject. Here is 
a change to be wrought in his nature — a nature that 
is corrupt, depraved, averse from God, alienated from 
the divine life; this nature is now to be attempered 
to God, made suitable to him, made propense and in- 
clined towards him. This might be done, it is true, 
by an immediate exertion of almighty power, without 
any more ado. But God will work upon men suita- 
bly to the nature of man. And what course doth he 
therefore take? He gives "exceeding great and pre- 
cious promises," and in them he declares his own 
good will, that he might win theirs. In order to the 
ingenerating grace in them, he reveals grace to them 
by these great and precious promises. And what is 
grace in us? Truly grace in us is goodwill towards 
God, or good nature towards God; which can never 
be without a transformation of our vicious, corrupt 
nature. It will never incline towards God, or be 
propense towards God, till he make it so by a trans- 



REGENERATION. 



225 



Instrumentality of the word — Howe. 

forming power. But how doth he make it so? By 
discovering his kindness and goodness to them in 
"exceeding great and precious promises," satisfying 
and persuading their hearts; I mean nothing but kind- 
ness towards you, why should you be unkind towards 
me? I am full of goodwill towards you, will you re- 
quite it with perpetual illwill, and everlasting enmity 
towards me ? Thus the " exceeding great and precious 
promises" are insturments to the communicating a 
divine nature to us, though that divine nature be 
ingenerated by a mighty power. God doth work 
at the rate of omnipotency in the matter, by the ex- 
ertion of almighty power; but yet suitably to our na- 
ture, so as to express his mind, and kind design, and 
goodwill, by the exceeding great and precious prom- 
ises contained in the gospel. 

'And if it were not so, he might as well make use 
of any other means as the gospel, to work upon souls 
by. But the gospel is the word of his grace.' 

There would seem to be the same evidence of in 
strumental action of the word as employed by the 
Spirit, which attends and evidences the direct effica- 
cy of natural causes. How do we learn the existence 
and power of natural causes? We see not power 
itself, and infer it only from the uniformity with which 
the effect follows the the application of the cause. 
It never exists without it, and always attends its 
application. But the same evidence of instrumental 
influence attends the ministration of the word of God. 
As a general fact, no spiritual life commences in its 
absence, and always in some form of association with 

20 



226 



REGENERATION. 



Manner of operation unrevealed. 

its presence — and whatever may be the theory of 
ministers on the subject, they all pray at the close 
of their sermons, that God would make his word 
effectual — clothe it with power — make it quick and 
powerful. The fire and the hammer to break, and 
melt, and purify the heart. 

Is the question still repeated, how does God make 
the word effectual in regeneration by his Spirit? 
That question belongs not to me, but to the Lord of 
the Bible; and has been long since asked of him, and 
answered by him. Nicodemus saith unto him, ; How- 
can these things be?' And the answer was, ; The 
wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound 
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whithe?* 
it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit.' 

Does it seem to any to be impossible that God 
should savingly enlighten by his word and Spirit? and 
make Hhe reading and especially the preaching of his 
word, an effectual mean of conviction and conver- 
sion?' It should be remembered, that many things are 
possible with God, w 7 hich seem impossible to men. 
That our philosophy is not the counsel of his will, ac- 
cording to which he worketh all things — nor our ca- 
pacity of comprehension the limit of God's almighty 
power. Where the lamp of our reason goes out, and 
far beyond what eye hath seen, or heart conceived — 
he holds on his eternal way in the great deep, and 
amid clouds and darkness, impenetrable to created 
mind. But in this unexplored and deep darkness — that 
he does a thing is the highest possible evidence of its 
rectitude — and that he has said a thing, the highest 



REGENERATION. 



227 



Why Divine power necessary. 

possible evidence of its truth. On the ground, then, 
of divine declaration we rest our confidence, that 
God can make his word and Spirit an effectual means 
of the conviction and conversion of sinners. 

IV. Why is the power of God necessary to regen- 
eration? why may not argument and motive prevail 
on men to turn to God? 

The power of God is not necessary because the 
will of man is forced, or by any absolute necessity of 
nature determined to evil. But it is necessary, be- 
cause the bias to actual sin occasioned by the fall is 
such, as eventuates in a perverse decision of the will 
and affections, in respect to the chief good, inducing 
the preference of the creature to the Creator; and 
because, when this perverse decision is once made, 
the heart is fully set and incorrigible to all motive, 
and immutable in its way — to which is to be added, 
the power of habit resulting from the repetition of 
evil desire, and purpose, and gratification; and though 
altogether, they force not the will, nor decide it 
wrong by an absolute necessity of nature, or cancel 
obligation, or afford excuse; they do, nevertheless, 
render all means and efforts abortive, which are not 
made effectual by the special influence of the Holy 
Spirit. 

During this aberration of the will and affections 
from God, there is nothing remaining to man which, 
by any possible culture, can become religion. 

No emotions of the sublime, in view of the majesty 
of God, which become adoration: no admiration of 
the adaptation of his character and laws to good re- 



228 



REGENERATION. 



No principle of virtue in fallen man. 

suits, or of the gospel to sustain law and recover the 
lost, which produce holy complacency: no delicacy 
of taste, or tenderness of sensibility, which will ex- 
pand and amplify into love: no pleasure in doing good 
rather than evil, which, by culture, can be made 
benevolence, embracing God with supreme, and 
his subjects with impartial good will: no patri- 
otism which can be kindled into piety; and none 
of the natural affections which unite in tender 
ties the family, which become cords of love to 
draw back the heart from the creature to God: no 
amiableness and good nature, which inspire evan- 
gelical self-denial for Christ's sake; and no piety 
which so extends beyond the sphere of the senses as 
to feel for the sorrows of the soul and the woes of 
eternity: no power of intellect or urgency of con- 
science, or fear of punishment, as ever in the order 
of cause and effect eventuate in godly sorrow: nor 
is there any power of institutions or of doctrine, 
or argument or eloquence, which ever enlightens 
savingly, the. dark mind, or wakes up the pulse of 
life in the dead soul. As I have said in my sermon 
on the native character of man, the discourse in 
which the chief evidence of my Pelagianism is sup- 
posed to be contained, — 'All which is admirable in 
intellect, or monitory in conscience, or compre- 
hensive in knowledge, or refined in taste, or deli- 
cate in sensibility, or powerful in natural affection, 
may be found in man as the result of constitution, or 
the effect of intellectual and moral culture: but reli- 
gion is not found, except as the result of a special 



REGENERATION. 



229 



Thoughts on creeds. 

divine interposition. The temple is beautiful, but it 
is a temple in ruins; — the divinity is departed, and 
the fire on the altar is extinct.' 

It follows, therefore, that except a man be born , 
again — be born from above — be born of the Spirit — 
be born of God, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 



A few thoughts upon creeds in general, and our 
own Confession in particular, and I have done. 

Creeds, it is well known, originated early, in the 
assaults of error upon fundamental truth, and were 
brought progressively, as collision and discrimination 
elicited the truth, into the well defined systems which 
we now possess. 

The design was, and ever has been, to repel the 
innovations of fundamental error, and unite the faith- 
ful in Christ Jesus in fellowship and action, for the 
extension of his kingdom upon earth. 

The right of men to associate for the maintenance 
and propagation of truth and worship in accordance 
with their understanding of the Bible, expressed in 
epitomised form, cannot be denied. It defrauds none 
of their rights of conscience to worship without 
creeds, who choose to do so, while it is essential to 
the liberty of conscience of those who desire to be 
associated in this manner-, of which none will be 
likely to complain, but those who desire to make 
their own conscience the rule of other men's judg- 
ments. The efficacy of creeds to maintain the 
20* 



230 



REGENERATION. 



Utility of creeds. 

purity of truth and the unity of the church, has been 
great. They have not, indeed, been omnipotent, in 
repelling the encroachments of error, or securing en- 
tirely the unity of the church: but it follows not from 
this, that they have been powerless. The question is 
not, how much they have failed to accomplish, but 
how much they have done, and what had been the 
condition of the church, without these memorials of 
anterior discussions and attainments. It must have 
been to theology like the blotting out of civilization 
by the northern barbarians, or the oblivion of all ex- 
perience with each generation, consigning the world 
in religion and science to the impotency of an ever- 
lasting infancy. 

Creeds have indeed been the occasion of contro- 
versy: but we might as well deplore the action of the 
atmosphere, because thunder-storms and tornadoes 
sometimes attend it. To the discussions of the refor- 
mation, we owe the emancipation of the world — the 
rights of free enquiry — the rights of conscience — the 
supreme authority of the Bible — the principles of its 
exposition, and the great principles of civil and reli- 
gious liberty. 

They were the battle begun — the conflict of mind 
with brute force — which will not terminate till the 
world is free. Our own independence is the fruit 
of it, and the overturnings which shake the world, 
and will shake it till knowledge and science cover the 
earth, are the consummation of that great conflict. 

It was the creeds of the reformation, also, and the 
zeal of holy men for them, which held Protestant na- 
tions together against the combinations of despotic 



REGENERATION. 



231 



Utility of creeds. 

force, and thus secured the permanent action of the 
great principles which were developed; and they 
have stood as the unity of the Spirit in the bond of 
peace, to break the force of temptation to apostacy, 
to strengthen in a period of declension the things that 
remain, and to become rallying points and means of 
a spiritual restoration. The thirty-nine articles have 
held the Episcopal church through ah her periods of 
declension, adversity, and change; and though once 
almost a dead letter, are now powerfully instrumen- 
tal in her glorious evangelical resurrection. So the 
standards of Scotland, and Geneva, and Germany, 
held their several churches like so many anchors, 
while the enemy came in like a flood, but are now 
the powerful means by which God is preparing to 
bring back their prosperity like the waves of the 
sea. In New England, where, for a little time, 
the creeds fell into a partial disrepute, they are 
coming into remembrance with renovated pow- 
er and honor. They were, during half her his- 
tory, established by civil and ecclesiastical law; 
and through the latter half, maintained the confi- 
dence and affections of the orthodox churches to 
an extent equal to what they have ever received any 
where. And though the ministry did not subscribe 
them as the condition of licensure or ordination, they 
were examined closely in respect to the doctrines 
and experimental religion they inculcate; and no 
man with Pelagian heresies in head, or heart, could 
any sooner get into the orthodox congregational 
churches of New England, than he could enter the 
Presbyterian church. 



232 



REGENERATION. 



Utility of creeds. 

The Shorter Catechism, from generation to gen- 
eration, has been taught in the families of the faith- 
ful, and was as uniform, and almost as venerated 
an inmate as the Bible. It was the knowledge 
that the doctrines of this catechism were the stan- 
dard doctrines of the Presbyterian church, which 
made them willing to waive their denominational 
peculiarities of church order, and pour their floods of 
pious emigrants, and prayers and contributions into 
the Presbyterian churches at the west, without lifting 
a finger for a Congregational organization — a form so 
dear to them, that had it been assailed on their own 
territory, they would have laid life down in its defence. 
They gave up their own church order, in respect to the 
west, on the ground of evangelical expediency, and 
their confidence in the Presbyterian church as loving 
and maintaining the same doctrines as themselves. In 
the twenty-five years that I have plead the cause of the 
missions and institutions of the west, and in my last 
and most successful effort, I never heard, in a single 
instance the objection made, ' the money is going out 
of our own church to build up another denomination.' 
If it be true that there are any conspiring to change 
the standards of our church, I have a right to say, 
from what I know, that whoever the conspirators 
may be, they are not the ministers or churches of 
New England, nor those who emigrate from New 
England. 

So far from changing or tampering with our stand- 
ards, we are called on by an intensity of motive to 
hold them fast. 

They were not at the time of their adoption newly 



REGENERATION. 



233 



Importance of maintaining creeds. 

discovered truths — but the collected and well bal- 
anced results of all the anterior discussions and la- 
bors of the church of God. They were adjusted by 
men of talent, learning, and piety, and by the con- 
curring wisdom and candor of so many minds, as 
precluded the favorite theories of any, and included 
the doctrines well defined, in which, amid known 
circumstantial discrepancies of opinion, they could cor- 
dially agree; thus forming an imperishable monument 
of unadulterated doctrine unmixed by theories, and 
at an equal remove from Pelagian laxness, and anti- 
nomian hyper Calvinism. 

The Confession itself, and Catechisms, are made 
up of the most judicious, concise, and accurate defi- 
nitions and descriptions of doctrine, experience, and 
practice, ever placed on record. Such as no single 
mind would have formed, or many minds without that 
marked providential supervision, which, in the same 
age that he gave us the Bible in a translation not to 
be rivalled, gave an epitome of its contents in sym- 
bols, which will carry down to the millennium the 
comprehensive suffrage of the faithful in Christ Jesus. 

What w r e have now chief occasion to guard against 
is, the repetition of the faults of other days, in relying 
too exclusively on the letter of our creeds, to prevent 
apostacy, and perpetuate the purity and power of the 
church. 

Experience has evinced that the generations of 
living men will govern the world in spite of any pos- 
sible legislation of those who have passed away; and 
that the only way to perpetuate creeds and constitu- 



234 



REGENERATION. 



The means of maintaining creeds. 

tions is, to perpetuate that nurture and admonition 
of the Lord, which will make them as acceptable to 
the coming, as they are to the existing generation. 
This is the import of the Proverb, that a living 
dog is better than a dead lion. It was in this respect 
that our Puritan fathers committed an oversight. 
The public sentiment of their day was so united and 
efficient, and their laws and creeds so well ordered 
and efficacious, that it seems scarcely to have occur- 
red to them that they should not live forever, or that 
the impulse they had given to them would not carry 
them down through all generations. They fell, there- 
fore, into an unseemly confidence in the short metre 
government of the family church and commonwealth 
by power, instead of the kind and winning influence 
of argument and affection, and that religious and 
moral culture by which God is accustomed to fashion 
aright the heart. The consequence was, that their 
creeds and ecclesiastical laws began to operate grad- 
ually upon necks and hearts unaccustomed to the 
yoke, until at length away went colleges, and creeds, 
and funds, and churches, and consecrated property, 
by the force of laws which the living made, in con- 
travention of the sacred intentions of the dead. 

There is a lesson which the church has been slow 
to learn, and yet must learn before her unbroken en- 
ergies and cordial and united action can be thrown 
upon the world. It is the medium between requiring 
too little or too much. The mind of man is so con- 
structed, that exact agreement in every thing cannot 
be secured by persuasion or by force. Even the 



REGENERATION. 



235 



The effects of too much severity. 

Romish church, with the world in chains and her foot 
upon the neck of nations, could by no force or ter- 
ror prevent the free born mind from thinking, or 
compel it to exact unity of speculation, and much 
less can it be done now and in our nation. Ecclesias- 
tical authority has lost its terrors, and civil coer- 
cion is unknown, and original investigation is the 
order of the day — proving all things, to hold fast that 
which is good. The result in any communion, of 
attempting a government of creeds, verbatim et liter- 
atum, would be formality and debility and endless 
divisions, on the one hand, and fanaticism on the oth- 
er. The monitory voice of experience on this sub- 
ject is loud and urgent. The stern exactions of the 
English church drove out the puritans, whose virtues 
she needed, and whose mildly administered order 
might have benefitted them; while the coerced sepa- 
ration produced the revolution, and the eccentric 
zeal of the commonwealth, and the formality, and 
heresy which attended the reaction. 

A similar course of urgent restriction by creeds, 
and of impatient zeal bursting from it by revivals 
of extravagance and excess, passed over Germany, 
and prepared the way first for dead orthodoxy, and 
next for rationalism. And in the same manner did 
the heresy of church and state, in the time of Whit- 
field and the Tenants produce separations and ex- 
cess, which made the one fanatical, to the disgrace of 
revivals, for half a century, and the other cold and 
formal, till, in leaning away from zeal without know- 
ledge, they fell first into dead orthodoxy, which 



236 



REGENERATION. 



The past policy of our church. 

was followed next by the Pelagian, and Arian, and 
Arminian heresies. 

For many years, our own church has rested from 
these collisions and alternations of ultra zeal. United 
by the comprehensive, cordial subscription to the 
doctrines of our Confession, ' as containing the sys- 
tem of doctrines taught in the holy scriptures,' im- 
plying a bona fide agreement in the fundamental 
doctrines, as they have been brought out in the con- 
troversies of the church, and expounded in opposition 
to Arian, and Unitarian, and Papal, and Pelagian 
errors, but never intended or understood as express- 
ing an exact agreement in speculations or language 
on any subject. On the contrary, those who framed 
the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, and 
those who adopted them as the bond of union to our 
church, differed in speculation and phraseology on 
some of the same points that the sons of the church 
differ about now; but never, till recently, have they 
been made the ground of formal accusations of heresy, 
and regular ecclesiastical animadversion. And now 
the question cannot be, whether one side or the other 
shall be expelled from the church, as hypocrites and 
heretics. We came in on both sides with the know- 
ledge of these circumstantial varieties of opinion and 
language, and in every form of recognition were made 
welcome, and assured of the protection of the church; 
and on neither side can we be stigmatized or expelled, 
without a breach of covenant and the action and in- 
justice of ex post facto laws. 

The only question is, whether we will dissolve 



REGENERATION. 



237 



The past terms of subscription. 

partnership; or attempt its continuance upon the 
new conditions of exact agreement in speculation 
and language on every subject, as well as on funda- 
mental doctrine. Whether the exposition of the 
Confession which I have given, on the subject of 
the natural ability of man, as a free agent, and his 
moral inability, as a totally depraved sinner; of ori- 
ginal sin, as including federal liability to the curse 
of the law, and as operating to the production of 
actual sin, not by force upon the will, or any abso- 
lute necessity of nature determining it to evil, 
but by an effectual, universal bias to actual sin; 
and of regeneration as a change of character, pro- 
duced not by omnipotent action alone, but by the 
immediate and infallible influence of God's word 
and Spirit: whether the exposition of these doc- 
trines, sustained by the language of the Confession, 
and corroborated by unbroken exposition from the 
primitive church to this day — confirmed in the line of 
the most approved Presbyterian expositors, Calvin, 
Turretin, and Witherspoon, and the great balance of 
biblical critics and expositors, shall be reversed and 
stigmatized as heresy; and the imprimatur of the 
church be given to the doctrine that man possesses no 
ability of any kind to obey the gospel — that original 
sin forces and determines the will to actual sin, by an 
absolute necessity of nature — that adult total depra- 
vity is involuntary, and the result of a constitution 
acting by the power of a natural and necessary 
cause — and that regeneration is a change of the natu- 
ral constitution, by the direct omnipotence of the 

21 



538 



REGENERATION. 



The consequences of change. 

Spirit, without any influential agency of the word of 
God. Such an exposition, the church, if it seem good 
to her, has the power of making; but not the right 
of giving to her exposition a retrospective action, 
to affect character and ecclesiastical standing, and 
vested rights. 

But the time hastens, as it would seem, when our 
church must decide, whether the examples of past 
abortive effort for exact identity in speculation and 
language, with all their mournful consequences, shall 
be for our warning, or for our example, and whether 
the coming fifty years shall be years of schism, and 
impotency, and confusion worse confounded; or 
whether, like a band of brothers, we shall move 
on under the same auspices which hitherto have 
concentrated in our church the energies of the East, 
and the West, and the North, and the South, till 
our victorious efforts, with those of other denomi- 
nations, who love our common Lord, shall, under 
his guidance and power, terminate in the universal 
victories of the latter day. And never was there a 
moment when a little panic of alarm, or impatience 
of feeling may turn for good or for evil, the life- 
giving or destroying waters of such a flood down 
through distant generations. 

The consequences of new and more restricted 
terms of communion are too legible in past experi- 
ence, and too manifest to unerring anticipation, to 
need labored exposition or fervent expostulation. 
And nothing assuredly could precipitate our beloved 
church upon the disastrous alternative, but such an 



REGENERATION. 



239 



The facilities of concord. 

abandonment of heaven as we do not believe in; and 
such a consequent infatuation of alarm and violence 
of passion, as would disregard alike both argument 
and expostulation, and with closed eye and deafened 
ear rush upon distruction. An event which we cheer- 
ingly believe his mercy will avert. 

The means of our preservation are obvious and 
easy. 

There will be, in a church so extensive as our own, 
unavoidably some diversities of doctrinal phraseology 
in our communications — theological provincialisms of 
men alike warmhearted in their belief in the doctrin- 
al and experimental views of our standards. These, 
as they pass from one department of the church to 
another, we must not attempt to compel by force to 
change the dialect by which, from maternal lips, the 
truth was breathed into their infant minds, and made 
effectual in their conversion, and made sacred by the 
association of theological instruction. 

Such sudden unclothings of thought, for new and 
unaccustomed habiliments, are impossible. And yet, 
patience and kindness on the part of the presby- 
teries and fathers of the church, will easily secure 
to all the purposes of edification — an assimilation 
which years of discourtesy and contention cannot 
compel. 

We ought, indeed, to speak the same things; but this 
means not the same words, but the same doctrines. 
Our Confession and Catechisms were intended as 
concise definitions, and not as furnishing the entire 
vocabulary of words, in which their doctrines shall be 



240 



REGENERATION. 



The facilities of concord. 

preached. The Bible, itself, does not confine us to 
its own phraseology; otherwise all exposition and 
preaching would be superseded by the simple reading 
of the Bible. And yet, where the terms of the Con- 
fession are grateful, and the language of a strange 
dialect the occasion of misconception and fear, I would 
not purposely offend or fail to edify, by finding out 
acceptable words; but, as Paul would do, become all 
things to all men, that if possible I might save some. 
Much less would I speak slightly of our creeds, and 
the phrases which time and association had rendered 
dear to the people of God. But I should expect, in 
return, in my own congregation, the same liberty of 
speech which I accorded to others, and the same def- 
erence of courtesy to familiar phrases, and cherished 
associations which I practised; and with a concili- 
atory spirit, and a small share of common sense and 
good manners, the church from end to end might be 
quiet from all agitation on the subject. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 





m 

WM i 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 






iiiiilil 
IIIHIIIIl 

— 



■■ l 

iiM 

9 / km] Kfinl Kttt 



W 



008 934 271 5 « 



HIH_ 

n9HHHH31 



